THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ADELITA QUEJADO-GREEN, 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 respondent attorney is disbarred due to misappropriation of client funds and failure to remit earnings or return principal.
The respondent attorney received substantial client funds for investment purposes but failed to remit earnings or return principal on demand. She ulti…
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 Misappropriation Of Client Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This attorney-discipline proceeding is before the Court upon the complaint of the Florida Bar and the report of the referee, filed with the Court pursuant to the Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.-06(9). See Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const. The referee found that in seven separate instances involving seven different clients, respondent received monies in trust for investment purposes. Respondent failed in her duties to remit earnings and to return principal on demand. Eventually she misappropriated the funds, apparently to her own use. The amounts given to her in trust by these various clients were quite sizable. She ultimately was faced with outstanding claims for the return of funds in excess of a quarter million dollars.
Respondent has not petitioned for review of the referee’s report. We adopt the referee’s findings of fact.
Mrs. Quejado-Green has demonstrated her lack of fitness for the practice of law. We order her disbarred immediately. We also assess against her the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $1,006.56.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Honorable Robert M. Deehl v. Knox, 414 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ed States v. Baker, 611 F. 2d 964 (4th Cir. 1979); United States v. Stofsky, 527 F. 2d 237 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 819, 97 S.Ct. 65, 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976); United States v. Fayer, 523 F. 2d 661 (2d Cir. 1975); The Florida Bar v. Lopez, 406 So. 2d 1100, 1102 (Fla.1981) (recognizing § 918.14(1), (2) in attorney discipline context); see also, Trushin v. State, supra, at 384 So. 2d 674, n. 17, and cases cited. Finally, we reject the appellee’s fail-back position that a limiting construction of § 918…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Bajoczky, 558 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1990)…ferees and, based on well-established principles of law, have determined that the referees’ findings will be upheld unless they are without support in the evidence. The Florida Bar v. Carter, 410 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla.1982); The Florida Bar v. Lopez, 406 So. 2d 1100, 1102 (Fla. 1981); The Florida Bar v. Stillman, 401 So. 2d 1306, 1307 (Fla.1981); The Florida [*1024] Bar v. McCain, 361 So. 2d 700, 706 (Fla.1978). In this instance, the referee has determined the Garys’ version of the facts to be truthful and has…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Nuckolls, 521 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1988)…ndings of fact, which are supported by competent evidence. A referee’s findings must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous or without support in the evidence. The Florida Bar v. Carter, 410 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla.1982); The Florida Bar v. Lopez, 406 So. 2d 1100, 1102 (Fla.1981); The Florida Bar v. Stillman, 401 So. 2d 1306, 1307 (Fla.1981); The Florida Bar v. McCain, 361 So. 2d 700, 706 (Fla.1978). Based upon these findings, we cannot view respondent’s conduct as anything less than a serious ethical breac…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence