THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
DAVID C. GASKIN, 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 court publicly reprimands a lawyer for neglecting a legal matter, failing to communicate, and falsely reporting the status of the case to the client.
A lawyer was found to have neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with his client, and falsely reported the status of the case. The referee r…
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 Failure To Communicate With Client cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a grievance procedure against David C. Gaskin, a member of the Florida Bar. The referee, a circuit judge, found that Gaskin neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, failed initially to communicate with his client, and upon communicating with that client falsely reported the status of the matter. He found that the respondent violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and (6)1 and 6-101(A)(3)2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the Florida Bar and recommended that a public reprimand be administered.
Gaskin’s actions cannot be condoned. When a lawyer fails to fulfill his responsibilities the image of the entire legal profession is tarnished. Perhaps even more egregious is the false reporting of the status of the matter. Absolute candor to a client by a lawyer is mandated because the very foundation of an effective attorney-client relationship is predicated upon mutual trust. Lawyers should never mislead their clients.
David C. Gaskin’s actions reflected adversely upon the integrity of the members of the bar, and he is hereby publicly reprimanded for his failure to diligently prosecute the legal matter entrusted to him and for misrepresenting the status of the litigation to his client. Costs in the amount of $646.52 are taxed against respondent.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C. J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.
. 1-102.
(A) A lawyer shall not:
* * * * *
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
* * * * *
(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
. 6-101.
(A) A lawyer shall not:
(3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pony Express Courier Corp. of Fla. v. Zimmer, 475 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ing in which this matter came to us. This court’s adherence to the central theme embedded within the supreme court’s decision in Harless permitted the appellees only “the right to contest damages caused by [their admitted] wrong but no other issue.” 403 So. 2d 425. In the face of the appellee’s default and subsequent failure to overcome Pony Express’s proof of damages, we are without choice in our responsibility to maintain an essential consistency in the operation of Rule 1.500 of the Florida Rules of Civil…