THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JULIAN E. HARRISON, 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 Supreme Court disciplined attorney Julian E. Harrison for neglecting client legal matters, misrepresenting actions taken, and improperly handling client cost monies. The court publicly reprimanded Harrison and assessed costs, upgrading the penalty beyond the Bar's recommendation of private reprimand due to his prior disciplinary history.
Harrison is publicly reprimanded and directed to pay costs of $303.80. The court rejected the Florida Bar's recommendation for private reprimand, finding it unacceptable given Harrison's prior disciplinary history and the seriousness of the current violations.
[1] A lawyer's misrepresentation to a client that a lawsuit has been filed when it has not constitutes a violation of disciplinary rules.
[2] Failure to handle client cost monies through an appropriate trust account violates professional responsibility rules.
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“The respondent neither prepared nor filed a suit on behalf of his client and then compounded his neglect by misrepresenting to his client that a trial date had been obtained when in fact, as indicated, he had never filed a suit.”
Establishes the core misconduct: both neglect of duty and affirmative misrepresentation to client
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarrison was retained to file suit against his client's former tenants for back rent and damages but failed to prepare or file the suit. He then misre…
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 Neglect Of Legal Matter cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this disciplinary proceeding against respondent as a member of The Florida Bar the referee in part made the following findings and recommendations:
Following respondent’s plea of guilty to both Count I and Count II of the complaint, the undersigned took testimony and heard argument. The evidence established that the respondent had been involved in a prior disciplinary matter involving neglect of legal matters entrusted to him. A private reprimand resulted in that disciplinary proceeding.
The respondent was employed to bring suit against his client’s former tenants for back rent and damages to rental property. The client paid respondent a retainer fee. The respondent neither prepared nor filed a suit on behalf of his client and then compounded his neglect by misrepresenting to his client that a trial date had been obtained when in fact, as indicated, he had never filed a suit. This conduct constitutes, as has been admitted, a violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-101(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2). Additionally the respondent failed to handle cost monies advanced to him by clients through an appropriate trust account and the respondent has admitted, in this connection, a violation of Article XI, Rule 11.02(4)(c) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the corresponding bylaws, as well as Disciplinary Rule 9-102(a) of The Florida Bar’s Code of Professional Responsibility.
The respondent made a refund to the client referred to in Count I of the retainer fee advanced to him, with interest. No misappropriation of funds has been charged either in the matter presently pending or in any prior disciplinary proceeding.
The respondent was admitted to The Florida Bar in 1972. He closed his private practice of law several months ago and is presently employed as Assistant Public Defender in the Fifth Judicial Circuit of this state. He indicated an intention to remain out of private practice for at least four years.
The Florida Bar, through counsel, recommended a penalty in the form of court-ordered private reprimand. The undersigned finds this to be an unacceptable penalty in the light of the prior disciplinary measure taken against the respondent which resulted in a private reprimand and the seriousness of the present charges.
It is, therefore, the recommendation of the undersigned Judicial Referee that the respondent, Julian E. Harrison, be publicly reprimanded for the violations set forth in the complaint and that, additionally, costs in the amount of $303.80 be assessed against the respondent.
Dated in the Chambers of the undersigned this 25th day of November, 1980.
* * * * * *
The report and recommendations of the referee are adopted. Respondent is publicly reprimanded by this order and he is directed to pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $303.80.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, Acting C. J., and OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Kaplan, 576 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 1991)…d loss of his father mitigated the offenses, we agree with The Florida Bar that because of respondent’s disciplinary history, a public reprimand is now in order. See, e.g., The Fla. Bar v. Lowery, 522 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1988); The Fla. Bar v. Harrison, 398 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1981). Accordingly, it is the judgment of this Court that attorney S. Richard Kaplan is both publicly reprimanded by publication of this opinion in the Southern Reporter and placed on probation under the supervision of a member of The Florida…