THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
WILLIAM T. FUSSELL, 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 court adopted the referee's recommendation for a public reprimand and costs against the respondent for failing to promptly refund unearned fees.
The respondent lawyer was found to have violated a disciplinary rule by failing to promptly refund unearned fees to a former client. Although the fees…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Following a grievance complaint filed by The Florida Bar, the appointed referee recommended that the respondent be found guilty of a violation of Disciplinary Rule 2-110(A)(3) of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility.1
Mr. Fussell did return unearned fees to his former client, but he was several months late in doing so. For this dereliction of his responsibilities the referee recommended a public reprimand. The record supports the referee’s recommendation and it is adopted.
Unearned fees do not belong to a lawyer when the attorney-client relationship ends. The lawyer has no further custodial rights to these funds. For the welfare of clients, as well as the image of the individual lawyer and of the organized bar, a prompt refund of unearned fees is dictated.
William T. Fussell is hereby publicly reprimanded for his failure to faithfully comply with this responsibility. Costs are assessed against him in the sum of $876.76.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.
. D.R. 2-110(A)(3) reads: A lawyer who withdraws from employment shall refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Grusmark, 544 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1989)…might befall the client, such as by cooperating with new counsel; the attorney also must account to the client for any funds that have not been reasonably expended. See The Florida Bar v. Hipsh, 441 So. 2d 617 (Fla.1983); The Florida Bar v. Fussell, 390 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1980). We agree with Grusmark that the fee may not have been excessive at the time of the initial agreement. However, the evidence is overwhelming that this fee became excessive at the time Grusmark was fired and refused to account to his clie…