THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GORDON D. SIMONDS, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1979-11-01
No. 56592
ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
376 So. 2d 853 Florida Supreme Court (1979) Caution
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court granted an attorney's petition to resign in lieu of discipline, acknowledging six pending disciplinary actions involving mishandling client investments and neglecting legal matters.


Holding

The court granted the attorney's petition to resign in lieu of discipline, acknowledging the pending disciplinary actions.


Headnotes

[1] An attorney engaging in business transactions with a client must fully advise the client of differing interests and legal rights, including the fiduciary standard imposed…

[2] An attorney's failure to perform legal services for which they have been retained, including neglecting cases and failing to appear at hearings, constitutes a violation o…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Respondent Gordon D. Simonds faced disciplinary actions for improper business transactions with clients in an investment situation and for failing to …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is a Petition for Leave to Resign in Lieu of Discipline pursuant to Fla.Bar In-tegr.Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.08(2).

Mr. Simonds currently has pending six separate disciplinary actions which resulted in the Bar filing a multiple-count complaint on December 6, 1978.

Two cases involve his mishandling and improper business transactions with two clients in an investment situation in Central Florida along with neglect in other areas of their affairs. In 1974, he secured $20,000 investment loans from each individual for a retail clothing store venture in Winter Park. He failed to advise either that he was the substantial owner of the business although he did indicate he would personally endorse the notes. No written security was provided to either client at the time or for several months thereafter. He did subsequently provide each a note for $20,000 bearing a 10% interest rate payable in five years and second note for $5,000 bearing no interest. When the retail cloth ing operation went bankrupt a year-and-a-half later, both clients lost substantially. However, the clients were eventually repaid in excess of 50% of their loans. The Petitioner also lost a substantial amount of his personal money. Mr. Simonds’ conduct in this matter violated Disciplinary Rules 1— 102(A)(4), 5 — 101(A), 5-104(A), 5-105, 6-101(A)(3), 7 — 101(A)(2) and 7-101(A)(3) of The Florida Bar’s Code of Professional Responsibility.

In the foregoing cases Mr. Simonds engaged in business investment transactions with clients without properly advising them of their differing interests, their legal rights and of the almost strict fiduciary standard imposed upon attorneys who enter into such business transactions with their clients which has long been the rule in Florida. See Bolles v. O’Brien, 63 Fla. 342, 59 So. 133 (1912); Halstead v. Florence Citrus Growers’ Ass’n., 104 Fla. 21, 139 So. 132 (1932); Gerlach v. Donnelly, 98 So. 2d 493 (Fla.1957); and Waldeck v. Marks, 328 So. 2d 490, 493 (Fla.3d D.C.A.1976) (a recent opinion citing the foregoing cases). This court has also disciplined attorneys for such dealings with their clients. See The Florida Bar v. Hornbuckle, 347 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1977); The Florida Bar v. Bennett, 276 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1973); and The Florida Bar v. Rhubottom, 132 So. 2d 395 (Fla.1961).

The four remaining cases concern Mr. Simonds’ undertaking legal representation of separate clients in 1974 and 1975 and failing to perform legal services for which he had been retained. In Case Number 09A76091, the Respondent failed to pursue a promissory note collection case after filing the Complaint and to return the client’s file until the grievance committee hearing in 1976. In Case Number 09A76107, the Respondent was retained to render advice and to set up a professional association for which he was paid his fee. Thereafter, he neglected the matter, was difficult to contact and apparently misplaced the file for a period of time. In Case Number 09A77112, the Respondent had assisted clients to prepare tax returns in the mid-1970’s. Although he was forwarded all necessary information in 1976 to prepare the returns for filing and secure an extension of time, he thereafter failed to do anything further or to return the information. In Case Number 09A77130, the Respondent represented a Defendant in a civil action arising out of the sale of a business. He was retained in August, 1975 and thereafter filed his Notice of Appearance. Despite a Notice of Final Hearing scheduled for December 4, 1975, Respondent failed to appear and no other person, including the Defendant, appeared at the hearing. Thereafter, a final’judgment was entered against his client. The foregoing matters involve violations of Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(AXl), 7— 101(A)(2) and 7-101(A)(3) of The Florida Bar’s Code of Professional Responsibility dealing with neglect of cases and failure to perform in behalf of clients.

The Bar in its response has represented that granting the Petition to Resign will be an appropriate disposition of the pending disciplinary cases.

The Petition for Leave to Resign in Lieu of Discipline is granted and Mr. Si-monds is hereby granted leave to resign from The Florida Bar on the express condition that as a condition precedent to readmission he pass the Ethics portion of the Florida Bar Examination.

Costs in the amount of $328.20 are hereby taxed against Respondent.

ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • K.M.A. Assocs., Inc. v. Meros, 452 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
    …ary judgment.... While business transactions between lawyers and clients are not prohibited, nevertheless they will be meticulously scrutinized when alleged to have been unfair. (Citation omitted.) Id. at 18, 19. Accord The Florida Bar v. Simonds, 376 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1979); Jordon v. Growney, 416 So. 2d 24 (Fla.4th DCA 1982); Abstract & Title Corp. of Florida v. Cochran, 414 So. 2d 284 (Fla.4th DCA 1982); Waldeck v. Marks, 328 So. 2d 490 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). As we have noted, the trial judge granted summary…
  • Cupeiro v. Baron, 555 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
    …his attorney. Moreover, the burden is cast upon the attorney in transactions of this kind to establish that such was made upon full and adequate consideration. Gerlach v. Donnelly, 98 So. 2d 493, 498 (Fla.1957); accord, The Florida Bar v. Simonds, 376 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1979); Bolles v. O’Brien, 63 Fla. 342, 354, 59 So. 133 (1912); Waldeck v. Marks, 328 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Smyrna Developers, Inc. v. Bornstein, 177 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Crane v. Stulz, 136 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). Apply…
  • Lidia Moreno v. Allen, 692 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
    …ed from the refunded portion of the George,Hartz fee. The latter agreements, entered into, as they were, in the course of the attorney-client relationship, were undoubtedly void for lack of consideration and overreaching. The Florida Bar v. Simonds, 376 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1979); Gerlach v. Donnelly, 98 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1957); Halstead v. Florence Citrus Growers' Ass’n, 104 Fla. 21, 139 So. 132 (1932); Bolles v. O’Brien, 63 Fla. 342, 59 So. 133 (1912); Cupeiro v. Baron, 555 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). . We ca…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw