THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
G. B. T., 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 brought disciplinary action against attorney G.B.T. for neglecting a client's unemployment claim matter and failing to communicate. The Court approved the referee's finding of misconduct under Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), but found the recommended six-month suspension excessive and imposed a reprimand instead.
G.B.T. violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) through his six-month failure to provide status reports and respond to client inquiries about the unemployment claim. However, a six-month suspension is excessive for this first offense, and a reprimand is the appropriate discipline. The Bar cannot proceed on disciplinary charges without a probable cause finding by the grievance committee or Board of Governors.
[1] Neglecting a legal matter entrusted to counsel and failing to respond to client inquiries constitutes a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3).
[2] A grievance committee or the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar must find probable cause before bar counsel can charge an attorney with an ethical violation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“G.B.T., by failing for six months to deliver to his client a status report and by refusing to respond to his client's inquiries regarding an unemployment claim he was hired to pursue, neglected a matter entrusted to him and thereby violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3).”
The Court's approval of the referee's finding of professional misconduct based on G.B.T.'s failure to communicate with and provide updates to his client.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceG.B.T. was hired to pursue an unemployment insurance claim for his client but failed to deliver any status report for six months and refused to respon…
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.
ENGLAND, Justice.
The Florida Bar brought a disciplinary action against G.B.T., resulting in a referee’s report recommending a six-month suspension from the practice of law, payment of the proceedings’ costs, and his making restitution to his client. Both The Florida Bar and G.B.T. have asked us to review the report of the referee. The Bar’s complaint alleged two counts of professional misconduct, only the first of which had evolved from a probable cause determination of a bar grievance committee. The first count alleged a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), charging neglect of a legal matter entrusted to counsel. The second count was dismissed by the referee on G.B.T.’s motion.
With regard to the first count, we have carefully reviewed the record and approve that portion of the referee’s findings which concludes that G.B.T., by failing for six months to deliver to his client a status report and by refusing to respond to his client’s inquiries regarding an unemployment claim he was hired to pursue, neglected a matter entrusted to him and thereby violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3). This finding was subject to conflicting, but substantial and competent evidence. We disapprove, however, that portion of the referee’s findings which concludes the statute of limitations had expired on his client’s unemployment claim as a result of G.B.T.’s failure to file suit. The record is uncontro-verted that the time for filing the client’s claim for unemployment insurance had elapsed prior to the date upon which G.B.T. was retained for legal services.
With regard to the second count, dismissed on the ground that there was no probable cause found by the grievance committee, we affirm the referee’s ruling. Nowhere in the Florida Integration Rule is bar counsel empowered to charge an ethical violation without a finding of probable cause by either the grievance committee or the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. On the contrary, the Integration Rule provides mechanisms by which bar counsel can proceed if he deems the finding of the grievance committee technically deficient, article XI, Rule 11.04(6)(b), or if he chooses to recommend to the Board of Governors that it make a finding of probable cause against the attorney, article XI, Rule 11.05(2).
A six months suspension from the practice of law for G.B.T.’s neglect of one legal matter, a technical violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), is excessive. G.B.T. has had no prior occasions of misconduct. A reprimand is the most that is appropriate, and we hereby reprimand G.B.T. for neglect of his client’s affairs and his failure to communicate. Costs in the amount of $355.00 shall be divided equally between G.B.T. and the bar. It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and BOYD, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.