THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
FRANK B. BYRON, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Suspension From Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court on Petition for Approval of Conditional Guilty Plea to violations of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3), (4) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and article XI, rule 11.02(3)(a) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar. We approve the Petition, and Respondent, Frank B. Byron, is hereby reprimanded and suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty (30) days effective July 7, 1980, thereby giving Respondent thirty (30) days to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients. Respondent is to accept no new clients from the date of this order. The publication of this opinion in Southern Reporter shall serve as Respondent’s public reprimand.
Costs in the amount of $1,159.69 are hereby taxed against the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Lugo v. State, 845 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2003)…O statute, section 895.03, Florida Statutes (1993), is patterned after its federal counterpart. Therefore, Florida courts may look to federal RICO decisions as persuasive authority. See Gross v. State, 765 So. 2d 39, 42 (Fla.2000); State v. Whiddon, 384 So. 2d 1269, 1271 (Fla.1980). In United States v. Baltas, 236 F. 3d 27 (1st Cir.2001), the pertinent indictment listed kid-naping and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin as predicate RICO acts in which the defendant had participated. The "co…
-
Bowden v. State, 402 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1981)…innocent or unknowing,” is simply not correct. Nor is it true that “participation, directly or indirectly, in the ‘enterprise’ can occur without any intent ... that the condemned behavior relate to any ‘enterprise’.” In the case of State v. Whiddon, 384 So. 2d 1269, 1271 (Fla.1980), we noted that the term “enterprise” was defined by statute and therefore the appellees were on notice as to that aspect of the charge. § 943.461(3), Fla.Stat. (1977). Sections 943.461 and 943.462 are not facially unconstitutional.…
-
State v. Bowen, 413 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…free competition and thereby constituting a substantial danger to the economic and general welfare of the state. See generally Note, Racketeers and Non-Racketeers Alike Should Fear Florida’s RICO Act, 6 F.S.U.L.Rev. 483 (1978); and State v. Whiddon, 384 So. 2d 1269 (Fla.1980). Specifically, Section 943.-462(3) makes it unlawful for any person “employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or the c…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence