THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
CLYDE T. WINDHAM, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Bar disciplined attorney Clyde T. Windham for failing to properly administer an estate he was retained to probate in 1966. The Florida Supreme Court suspended him for six months after finding violations of professional responsibility rules regarding neglect, failure to act competently, and failure to pursue lawful objectives of clients.
The Court approved the referee's findings that Windham violated DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(2), and DR 7-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his neglect and failure to properly administer the estate.
[1] A lawyer may be disciplined for failing to diligently pursue the administration of an estate after being retained and paid for such services.
[2] A lawyer's failure to respond to requests from the Probate Court to conclude an estate constitutes a violation of professional responsibility.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“That on November 2, 1966, Mr. David Jarvis retained the Respondent, CLYDE T. WINDHAM, for the amount of $250 to probate the estate of Mr. Jarvis' son. That for a period between 1966 and 1973 there were several communications by Mr. Jarvis to the Respondent who had no excuse for not proceeding with the administration of the estate.”
Establishes the core facts of neglect and lack of diligence over a seven-year period
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1966, Mr. David Jarvis retained respondent Windham for $250 to probate his son's estate. Between 1966 and 1973, Jarvis made several commun…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Integration Rule Of The Florida Bar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida, Bar against Clyde T. Windham, a member of The Florida Bar, is presently before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and Report of Referee. Pursuant to Rule 11.06 of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the referee’s report and record were duly filed with this Court. No petition for review pursuant to Rule 11.09(1), Integration Rule, has been filed.
Having considered the pleadings and evidence, the referee found as follows:
That on November 2, 1966, Mr. David Jarvis retained the Respondent, CLYDE T. WINDHAM, for the amount of $250 to probate the estate of Mr. Jarvis’ son. That for a period between 1966 and 1973 there were several communications by Mr. Jarvis to the Respondent who had no excuse for not proceeding with the administration of the estate. Further, I find that, although on November 2, 1973 the Respondent had filed a Petition for Letters for Administration in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, he did not take such actions as were required of him as counsel for the estate and that he failed to respond to requests of the Probate Court to conclude the estate.
The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(2), and DR 7-101(A)(3), of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Accordingly, respondent, CLYDE T. WINDHAM, is hereby suspended from The Florida Bar for a period of six months; and that before he is reinstated show evidence of rehabilitation to The Florida Bar or Bar Counsel as to his ability to carry on the practice of law as provided in Rule 11.10 of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar; and it is further ORDERED that this suspension shall be effective May 5, 1980, thereby giving respondent sixty (60) days to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall not accept any new business.
Execution is hereby directed to issue against respondent for costs in the amount of $687.60.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and OVERTON, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Maas, 510 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1987)…t some period of time and that his right to resume the practice of law should be conditioned upon the payment of the restitution. Other cases involving neglect in the handling of estates have also resulted in suspensions. The Florida Bar v. Windham, 380 So. 2d 1294 (Fla.1980); The Florida Bar v. Shannon, 376 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1979); The Florida Bar v. Zyne, 248 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1971). EHRLICH, J., concurs.…