THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
NORMAN F. SOLOMON, 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 Norman Solomon for failing to diligently prosecute three matters entrusted to him, including a personal injury suit arising from a severed hand. The Florida Supreme Court accepted Solomon's conditional guilty plea to the charges and imposed a three-year suspension from the practice of law, but modified the commencement date to account for the Bar's own dilatory conduct in advancing the proceeding.
The court accepted Solomon's conditional guilty plea to three counts of failure to diligently prosecute and imposed a three-year suspension from the practice of law. However, the court rejected the referee's recommended commencement date and instead ordered the suspension to commence on February 10, 1981, the date Solomon entered the plea, to account for the Bar's own neglect in advancing the proceeding.
[1] An attorney's failure to diligently prosecute matters entrusted to them constitutes professional misconduct.
[2] An attorney has a duty to inform their client of the progress, or lack thereof, and status of their legal matters.
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“Respondent did not pursue the suit against the manufacturer or the installer. The former is either still pending or has been dismissed for lack of prosecution; the latter was dismissed without prejudice and is now barred by the statute of limitations.”
Establishes the core misconduct: Solomon's failure to pursue two of three claims he filed on behalf of his client.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSolomon represented a client who suffered a severed hand at work. Solomon filed suit against the machine manufacturer, the machine installer, and the …
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 Conditional Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In its complaint, The Florida Bar charged bar member Norman Solomon with three counts of failure to diligently prosecute matters entrusted to him. Respondent agreed to represent a client whose hand had been severed by a machine at his place of employment. On behalf of the client, respondent filed suit against the machine’s manufacturer, the machine’s installer, and against the client’s doctor for malpractice. Respondent did not pursue the suit against the manufacturer or the installer. The former is either still pending or has been dismissed for lack of prosecution; the latter was dismissed without prejudice and is now barred by the statute of limitations. Respondent did not inform his client as to the progress, or lack thereof, or status of these causes. Respondent pursued the malpractice claim until his suspension from the practice of law for an unrelated matter.*
Respondent and the bar entered into a stipulation, later submitted to the referee, whereby respondent admitted his guilt conditioned upon his receiving not more than a three-year suspension from the practice of law, the suspension “to commence at the time of the acceptance of the offer to plead guilty.” The referee reviewed the conditional plea and recommended that it be accepted. Because the bar was itself dilatory, however, in advancing the instant proceeding (the referee noted that the proceeding had endured from February 20, 1979, to April 23, 1981, and that bar counsel failed to attend one of the scheduled final hearings), the referee recommended that the three-year suspension commence at the date respondent could have petitioned for reinstatement.
We accept the conditional guilty plea but reject the referee’s recommended suspension commencement date. We find the more appropriate date for the suspension to commence, given the bar’s neglect, is the date on which respondent entered the plea, February 10, 1981. Respondent shall pay the cost of these proceedings, $388.00.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur. *
See The Florida Bar v. Solomon, 338 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1976). Respondent has not petitioned for reinstatement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Solomon, 589 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1991)…m practice before a federal court in 1967. Id. at 819 n. 1. The Florida Bar later charged Solomon with three counts of failing to prosecute diligently matters entrusted to him, and this Court imposed a three-year suspension. The Fla. Bar v. Solomon, 409 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1982). Solomon has never sought reinstatement from either of his suspensions. The Florida Bar filed a two-count complaint against Solomon in November 1990, alleging that (1) Solomon wrote checks on the bank accounts of businesses he was involv…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Normon F. Solomon, 338 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1976)