THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOHN ERROL LEE, 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 Supreme Court disciplined attorney John Errol Lee for professional misconduct spanning three separate matters involving misappropriation of client funds, abandonment of estate administration, and neglect of legal representation. Because Lee had been disbarred in a separate proceeding, the Court extended his reinstatement waiting period and required restitution.
The Court adopted the referee's factual findings establishing multiple violations of Disciplinary Rules 2-110(A)(2), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2), and Integration Rule 11.02(4). Because Lee had already been disbarred in a related proceeding, the Court extended his reinstatement waiting period from three to four years and required restitution as a prerequisite to reinstatement.
[1] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
[2] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by failing to carry out a contract for professional services.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“respondent undertook to represent a decedent's estate. He received funds from the sale of an asset of the estate. In respondent's trust account the funds were used to meet expenses unrelated to the estate and were not restored.”
Establishes misappropriation of client funds and the core violation in Count One
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee undertook representation of decedent estates and a corporation's legal claim without proper completion. In the first estate matter, he received fu…
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 Attorney Disbarment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court on the complaint of the Florida Bar, the report of a referee, and the petition of the Florida Bar for review. Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const.; Fla.Bar Integr. R., art. XI, Rule 11.09.
The respondent neither appeared at the referee’s hearing, answered the Bar’s complaint, nor responded to the petition for review. We are satisfied he received proper notice, however. The complaint was in three counts. As to the first, the referee found respondent undertook to represent a decedent’s estate. He received funds from the sale of an asset of the estate. In respondent’s trust account the funds were used to meet expenses unrelated to the estate and were not restored. Respondent closed his office and left Florida without advising the personal representative of the estate, without withdrawing as attorney for the estate, and without resigning as resident agent for the estate. He never completed the administration of the estate. The referee found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3); failed to carry out a contract for professional services, in violation of Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A)(2); and applied money entrusted to him to an unauthorized purpose, in violation of Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.02(4).
Count two also involved an estate. The referee found that respondent undertook representation and was paid a fee of $350.00. After filing the petition for administration, the respondent performed no further services. He closed his office and left the state without notifying the personal representative. The referee found neglect of an entrusted legal matter, in violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), and failure to carry out a contract for professional services in violation of Disciplinary Rule 7 — 101(A)(2).
With regard to count three, the referee found that respondent undertook to represent a corporation in pursuing a monetary claim against a bank. The client paid $500 as a portion of an agreed fee. Respondent filed a legal action which was dismissed with an allowance of ten days in which to file an amended complaint. Respondent failed to file an amended complaint and the action was dismissed with prejudice. He failed to advise the client of his withdrawal or the necessity to file an amended complaint. Nor did he return documents the client would need to avoid dismissal with prejudice. Although not finding that the dismissal with prejudice barred the actual claim, the referee found that respondent handled a legal matter without preparation in violation of Disciplinary Rule 6— 101(A)(2); neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of Disciplinary Rule 6--101(A)(3); failed to carry out a contract for services in violation of Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A)(2); and failed to notify the client and deliver papers to which the client was entitled in violation of Disciplinary Rule 2-110(A)(2).
We adopt the factual findings of the referee. The referee recommended that respondent be suspended for one year and until he proves rehabilitation and pays res titution and costs. The Bar’s petition for review points out that after the referee’s report was filed, respondent was disbarred in an unrelated disciplinary proceeding. The Florida Bar v. Lee, 396 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1981). We therefore extend from three to four years the period respondent must wait from the date of disbarment before seeking reinstatement. Fla.Bar Integr. R., art. XI, Rule 11.10(5). The recommended condition of restitution of amounts found due by the referee is approved as a prerequisite to reinstatement. The costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent in the amount of $755.20.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.