THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JAMES T. GOLDEN, 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.
An attorney who borrows client trust funds without repaying them on time and fails to maintain adequate trust account records violates disciplinary rules concerning the handling of client property and record-keeping obligations, warranting a public reprimand absent prior disciplinary history.
[1] An attorney who borrows client trust funds with the client's permission but fails to repay them timely violates disciplinary rules governing the handling of client proper…
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 intelligenceGolden received $3,000 in client trust funds for a real estate transaction; when the deal fell through, the client permitted Golden to borrow the mone…
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 Violation Of Disciplinary Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a two-count complaint, The Florida Bar has charged Florida Bar member James T. Golden with mishandling trust moneys entrusted to him. As to count one the referee found that one of respondent’s clients deposited $3,000 with respondent to be used in connection with a real estate transaction. When that transaction fell through and with the permission of the client, respondent borrowed the money for supposedly a short period of time. Although the client made repeated attempts to recoup the loan, respondent was unable to repay it for nearly two years. For this action, the referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 5-101(A), 5 — 104(A), and 9-102(BX4), and Integration Rule, art. XI, rule 11.02(4).
As to count two, the referee found that respondent failed to keep adequate records of his trust accounting procedures in 1978 and 1979 as required by Integration Rule Bylaws, art. XI. The referee recommended that for this action respondent be found guilty of violating disciplinary rules 9-102(A) and 9-102(B)(3); Integration Rule, art. XI, rule 11.02(4)(c); and technical but not blatant violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4).
Finding no past disciplinary record, the referee recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. No petition for review has been filed with this Court. We therefore approve the findings and recommendations as presented. Publication of this order will serve as public reprimand. Respondent will pay the cost of these proceedings in the amount of $1,902.32.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
BOYD, Acting C. J.,
concurs as to finding of misconduct but dissents to the discipline imposed and would favor a private reprimand.