THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
WILLIAM T. MAYO, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Disclose cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this bar disciplinary action the referee has recommended that William T. Mayo be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 7-102(A)(3). This recommendation followed a finding that, without any plausible reason or justification, Mayo concealed or knowingly failed to disclose trust instruments which were necessary “muniments of title” and which he was required by law to reveal. Finding that Mayo’s actions were not of a serious nature, but noting that Mayo’s obstinate refusal to do what he was clearly required to do caused needless legal expense, the referee recommended that William T. Mayo be publicly reprimanded by this Court. We accept and adopt the referee’s report and recommendation and, by publication of this opinion, reprimand Mr. Mayo for his failure to perform his legal duty.
Costs in the amount of $618.98 are assessed against William T. Mayo.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., concurs with an opinion.
ADKINS, A. C. J., dissents.
EHRLICH, Justice,
concurring.
I concur only because no review was sought by respondent. The Referee found that “[Mayo’s] actions were not of a serious nature” and that “no past disciplinary measure has come to the attention of the Referee.” In my opinion, a private reprimand is an adequate disciplinary measure to be applied in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. NEU, 597 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1992)…of Neu’s negligence. Thus, we overturn the referee’s recommendation of a ninety-day suspension and suspend Neu for six months. We reject Neu’s cross-claim seeking to reduce the amount of imposed costs taxed against him. In The Florida Bar v. Davis, 419 So. 2d 325, 328 (Fla.1982), we held that the Court should use sound discretion in assigning the costs of disciplinary proceedings. Considering the seriousness of the charges brought against Neu, we find that The Florida Bar did not act unreasonably in seeking…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Bosse, 609 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1992)…tly, we reaffirm our view that a referee does have the discretion to recommend the assessment of costs against the Bar; however, the final discretionary authority to tax costs against the Bar rests solely in this Court. In The Florida Bar v. Davis, 419 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1982), we established the standard for setting costs in bar disciplinary actions, stating: We have set no hard or fast rules relative to the assessment of costs in disciplinary proceedings. In civil actions the general rule in regard to costs…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Lechtner, 666 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1996)…his portion of the referee’s report. This Court has found that, generally, when there is a finding that an attorney has been found guilty of violating a Rule Regulating the Florida Bar, the Bar should be awarded its costs. See Florida Bar v. Davis, 419 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1982). Assessment of costs against a respondent who has violated the Rules of Discipline is a policy decision. The choice is between imposing the costs of discipline on those who have violated our Rules of Professional Conduct or on the members…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence