THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
FRANK BYRON, 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 suspended attorney Frank Byron for sixty days for neglecting a legal matter that resulted in dismissal of his client's case, finding a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3).
An attorney who neglects a legal matter entrusted to him, resulting in dismissal with prejudice of the client's case, violates Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) and is subject to suspension.
[1] An attorney's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him, resulting in dismissal with prejudice of the client's case, constitutes a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Byron neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, which resulted in dismissal with prejudice of his client's case. Byron had previously been susp…
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 Suspension From Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The respondent, Frank Byron, neglected a legal matter entrusted to him which resulted in dismissal with prejudice of his client’s case. The referee found this neglect to be a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(AX3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence.
Respondent has previously been suspended for thirty days in a disciplinary. action resulting from his failure to file income tax returns. 384 So. 2d 1269. Considering that fact and the circumstances of this neglect, the referee recommended suspension for an additional sixty to ninety days. As an additional requirement, the bar recommends that the respondent satisfy his former client’s stipulated claim of six thousand dollars before being readmitted to practice. Subsequent to the bar’s recommendation, the respondent executed a binding contractual agreement to satisfy that claim. We find that this contract sufficiently protects the client, and we deny the bar’s recommended condition for readmission.
Frank Bryon is publicly reprimanded for failing to fulfill his responsibilities as an attorney, is suspended from the practice of law for an additional sixty days, and shall pay costs of these proceedings in the amount of $148.30.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J„ and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.