THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JAMES C. MCKENZIE, 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 court held that the referee's findings were clearly erroneous and the respondent attorney violated disciplinary rules by accepting a retainer and appointment in the same estate, warranting a public reprimand.
The Florida Bar petitioned for review of a referee's recommendation that an attorney not be found guilty of violating disciplinary rules. The attorney…
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 Dual Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This attorney discipline case is before us on the petition of The Florida Bar to review the referee’s recommendation that respondent be found not guilty of violating The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1), 5-105(A), and 5-107(A)(l) and (2). The Bar asserts that the referee’s findings of fact and recommendation as to guilt are not supported by the record. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We recognize that the referee’s “findings should be upheld unless clearly erroneous or without support in the evidence.” The Florida Bar v. Hirsch, 359 So. 2d 856 (Fla.1978). We find, however, that the record in this case irrefutably establishes that respondent accepted a $1,000 retainer from an heir to an estate and accepted appointment as attorney for the personal representative of the same estate. This dual representation constitutes a violation of Disciplinary Rule 5-105(A).
Under the circumstances of the record in this case, we conclude that the findings of the referee were clearly erroneous. We reject the referee’s report and find respondent guilty of violating The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1) and 5-105(A). We further find that respondent’s conduct merits the imposition of a public reprimand. The publication of this opinion in Southern Reporter will serve as that public reprimand.
Costs in the amount of $706.70 are hereby taxed against the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (38 total)
-
Leila Carter v. City OF Stuart & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 468 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1985)…y rejected when it was advanced as a reason for relief from the legislative decision that public records and meetings will be open. Neu v. Miami Herald, 462 So. 2d 821 (Fla.1985); Tribune Co. v. Cannella, 458 So. 2d 1075 (Fla.1984); Wood v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla.1983); Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1979); City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla.1971); and Board of Public Instruction v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1969). As I attempted to show in my dissent to Everton,…
-
NEU v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 462 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1985)…ld have us read section 286.011 narrowly and hold that it applies only to the climatic meetings where official actions and acts are approved by the governing body. We have recently articulated why we will not adopt such a reading in Wood v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla.1983), and will not repeat the reasons here. One can argue and reargue whether the broad reading of the Sunshine Law in Doran and its progeny is politically wise.* The fact re [*826] mains that Doran was rendered fifteen years ago and placed th…1 / 2
-
Sarasota Citizens FOR Responsible Gov't v. City OF Sarasota, 48 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 2010)…onable notice of all such meetings. Because section 286.011 “was enacted in the public interest to protect the public from ‘closed door’ politics ... the law must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purpose.” Wood v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934, 938 (Fla.1983). As this Court has explained, [t]he statute should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices. This can be accomplished only by embracing the collective inquiry and discussion stages within the terms of the statute, as long…
Previewing 3 of 38 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Hirsch, 359 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1978)