THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOHN N. SAMAHA, 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 John N. Samaha for charging and collecting an unauthorized $5,000 fee in addition to a court-approved $1,000 fee in a workers' compensation matter. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's recommendation and imposed a public reprimand and costs against Samaha.
Samaha violated Disciplinary Rule 2-106(A) and 9-102(B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11.02(3)(a) and (4) of Article XI of the Integration Rule by collecting the unauthorized $5,000 fee.
[1] A lawyer may be found guilty of violating disciplinary rules for receiving an unapproved fee in a workers' compensation claim.
[2] A lawyer's retention of an unapproved fee from a client's recovery can constitute a violation of professional responsibility rules.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In October, 1978, Judge Alpert discussed the $5,000 fee with the respondent and informed the respondent that the fee was illegal and in contravention of Chapter 440.34 of The Florida Statutes.”
Establishes that Samaha was explicitly warned by the judge that the additional fee violated statutory limits on workers' compensation attorney fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamaha represented Idris Evans in a workers' compensation claim. The Industrial Claims Judge approved a $1,000 fee for Samaha. Beyond this authorized …
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 Code Of Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against John N. Samaha, a member of The Florida Bar, is presently before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and report of referee. Pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.06(9)(b) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the referee’s report and record were duly filed with this Court. No petition for review pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.09(1) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar has been filed.
Having considered the pleadings and evidence, the referee found as follows:
That respondent represented Mr. Idris Evans in a workman’s compensation claim pursuant to Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes. That as a result of his representation, the respondent was awarded a fee of $1,000 by order of Judge Jonathon L. Alpert, Judge of Industrial Claims, dated July 13, 1978. In addition to the $1,000 awarded to the respondent as his fee, respondent withheld additional $5,000 from Mr. Evans’ recovery from the workman’s compensation claim. Thereafter, Mr. Evans complained of this additional taking to Terry Sue Turner, a rehabilitation nurse. Subsequent thereto, Ms. Turner informed Judge Alpert of Mr. Evans complaint.
In October, 1978, Judge Alpert discussed the $5,000 fee with the respondent and informed the respondent that the fee was illegal and in contravention of Chapter 440.34 of The Florida Statutes. The respondent continued to maintain his right to the additional $5,000 fee until found guilty of receiving an unapproved fee in State v. John N. Samaha, Case No. CTC7901810 MASO in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida. As a result of that criminal matter, respondent was ordered to make restitution to Mr. Evans in the amount of $5,000, which restitution has now been made.
The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 2-106(A) and 9-102(B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar and Rule 11.02(3)(a) and (4) of Article XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar and recommends that respondent receive a public reprimand. Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Accordingly, respondent, John N. Sam-aha, is hereby publicly reprimanded and the publication of this order and judgment shall constitute a public reprimand.
Costs in the amount of $325.25 are hereby taxed against respondent.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting Chief Justice, and BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Samaha, 557 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1990)…and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law. Prior to recommending discipline, the referee took into account the fact that Sam-aha previously has been publicly reprimanded by this Court. The Florida Bar v. Samaha, 407 So. 2d 906 (Fla.1981). The referee then recommended discipline of another public reprimand and a year’s probation with psychological counseling as an express condition. Samaha asks us to affirm the referee’s report in all respects. The Florida Bar, on the oth…