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.
The Florida Bar disciplined attorney James T. Golden for mishandling client trust funds by borrowing $3,000 for nearly two years and failing to maintain adequate trust accounting records, resulting in a public reprimand and cost assessment.
An attorney who borrows client trust funds without timely repayment and fails to maintain adequate trust accounting records violates disciplinary rules and is subject to public reprimand.
[1] An attorney who borrows client trust funds with permission but fails to repay them timely violates disciplinary rules governing trust account management.
[2] An attorney must maintain adequate records of trust accounting procedures as required by integration rules and bylaws.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 from a client for a real estate transaction that fell through. With the client's permission, Golden borrowed the money but was …
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.