THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOSEPH BRADHAM, JR., 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 adopted a referee's recommendation and suspended attorney Joseph Bradham, Jr. from the Florida Bar for thirty days, imposed two years of supervised probation, and ordered payment of costs for violations of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6).
An attorney who violates Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6) is subject to a thirty-day suspension, two-year supervised probation, and costs.
Bradham tendered a conditional guilty plea acknowledging his violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6) in a disciplinary proceeding …
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 Payment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon a complaint by The Florida Bar this Court appointed a referee to conduct a hearing regarding Bradham’s alleged misconduct. Bradham tendered a conditional guilty plea for. consent judgment,* acknowledging his violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6). The referee recommended that Bradham be found guilty in accordance with his conditional plea and that he receive a public reprimand, a 30-day suspension, a two-year supervised probationary period and payment of costs.
Neither side contests the referee’s report which we hereby adopt. Publication of this opinion in Southern Reporter will serve as the public reprimand, and Joseph Bradham, Jr., is suspended from The Florida Bar for thirty days effective March 26, 1984, thereby giving respondent 30 days to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients, and respondent shall not accept any new business. Respondent is placed on supervised probation for a period of two years.
Costs in the amount of $1,014.00 are hereby taxed against respondent.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, OVERTON, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ALDERMAN, C.J., concurs.
*
We feel it unnecessary to publish the full text of the plea. The Court file is open for inspection.
EHRLICH, Justice,
dissenting.
The referee accepted respondent’s conditional guilty plea for consent judgment and recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand, a 30-day suspension, and a two year supervised probationary period. The complaint charged respondent with dishonesty in his relations with his law partners. In my opinion, the seriousness of the offenses charged against respondent, if proved, warrant a more substantial punishment than that received. Of course, if respondent is proved not guilty, he would be exonerated. I would, therefore, disapprove the proposed plea and the referee’s report based thereon and remand for further proceedings pursuant to the Integration Rules.
ALDERMAN, C.J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Cyrus A. COX, 655 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1995)…15 (Fla.1986), and Florida Bar v. Childers, 582 So. 2d 617 (Fla.1991), we suspended the attorneys for ninety days for diverting client fees which were intended for the law firm to their own personal accounts. In another case, Florida Bar v. Bradham, 446 So. 2d 96 (Fla.1984), the attorney was suspended for thirty days for dishonesty in relations with his law partners. Finally, in Florida Bar v. Herzog, 521 So. 2d 1118 (Fla.1988), the attorney received a ten-day suspension for engaging in deceptive billing pra…