THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
THOMAS W. MONTGOMERY, 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 disbarred attorney Thomas W. Montgomery for neglecting specific legal matters, abandoning his law practice without client notice, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings.
An attorney who neglects specific legal matters, abandons his practice without notifying clients, and fails to cooperate with Bar disciplinary proceedings shall be disbarred.
[1] An attorney's failure to answer a Bar complaint, appear at a disciplinary hearing, cooperate with Bar investigation, protect client interests upon abandonment of practice…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas W. Montgomery was charged with neglecting specific legal matters entrusted to him and abandoning his law practice without giving notice to clie…
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 Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before us on the complaint of the Florida Bar and the report of the referee recommending disbarment. Neither the Bar nor the respondent has petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const. The Bar charged respondent with the neglect of specific legal matters entrusted to him and with the abandonment of his law practice without giving notice to his clients. Respondent did not answer the Bar’s complaint and request for admissions or appear at the final hearing, although he received proper notice of these proceedings. The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of the specific and general neglect of his law practice, as charged in the complaint, in violation of Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1) and (6), 6-101(A)(2) and (3), and 7-101(A)(l), (2), and (3). In recommending respondent’s disbarment, the referee considered, as aggravating factors, respondent’s failure to cooperate with the Bar, his failure to appear at the final hearing, his failure to take adequate measures to protect his clients’ interests upon abandonment of his law practice, and his failure to pay his Florida Bar dues since 1979.
We agree with all of the findings and recommendations of the referee; respondent, Thomas W. Montgomery, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law. Costs are assessed against respondent in the amount of $558.35.
It is so ordered.
ADKÍNS, Acting C. J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Lane W. Vaughn, 608 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1992)…lty of any other substantive violations. We agree with Vaughn that in the past such noncooperation has only been considered an aggravating factor when the attorney is found guilty of the substantive charges. See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Montgomery, 412 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1982). However, prior to the adoption of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar in 1987, there was no counterpart to rule 4-8.1(b). Thus, lack of cooperation did not constitute a separate offense and could only be cited as an aggravating factor.…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Bartlett, 509 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1987)…9 (Fla.1981). Moreover, a lawyer’s willful refusal to participate at all in the disciplinary process when he is accused of misconduct calls into serious question the lawyer’s fitness for the practice of law. See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Montgomery, 412 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1982). For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the recommended disciplinary action and disbar Charles Edward Bartlett, effective immediately. The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against respondent fo…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Montgomery, 419 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1982)…isbarment. Neither the Bar nor respondent has petitioned for review. We find that the instant cause should be dismissed because of mootness since, while this matter was pending, this Court disbarred respondent. Florida Bar v. Thomas W. Montgomery, 412 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1982). In dismissing this cause, we emphasize that, should respondent ever petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Florida, the findings and recommendations of the referee will be proper subjects for consideration in the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence