THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
LEONARD LEE SHELDON, 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 suspended attorney Leonard Lee Sheldon from practice for one year based on his mishandling of client funds, misrepresentation regarding trust accounts, failure to properly safeguard estate checks, and neglect in preparing a new will. The Court adopted the referee's findings and recommendations without modification.
Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) for deceit or misrepresentation, Disciplinary Rules 9-102(A) and Integration Rule 11.02(4) for improper handling of trust funds, and Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) for neglect of legal matters. The appropriate discipline is suspension from practice for one year, proof of rehabilitation, assessment of costs, and a thirty-day period to close his practice.
[1] A referee's findings of fact in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding are accepted as correct when neither party seeks review.
[2] A lawyer violates disciplinary rules by misrepresenting to a client that funds will be deposited into a specific bank account when no such account is opened.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The referee found that respondent received $3,025 from a client and represented to her that the money would be deposited in a bank account he would open for the estate of the client's deceased husband. The promised bank account was never opened, nor did respondent keep the client's money in an identifiable trust account.”
Establishes the misrepresentation and improper fund handling that violated professional responsibility rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheldon received $3,025 from a client, representing he would deposit it in a new bank account for the client's deceased husband's estate, but never op…
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 Lawyer Discipline cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This lawyer-discipline proceeding is before the Court upon the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of a referee. Neither party seeks review of the referee’s findings and recommendations. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Because there is no petition for review of the referee’s report, we must accept the referee’s findings of fact as correct. Fla.Bar Integr.R., art. XI, Rule 11.09(3)(f). The referee found that respondent received $3,025 from a client and represented to her that the money would be deposited in a bank account he would open for the estate of the client’s deceased husband. The promised bank account was never opened, nor did respondent keep the client’s money in an identifiable trust account. Respondent returned the money when a demand was made on behalf of the client. Respondent also kept in his possession two checks for insurance proceeds payable to the estate of the client’s deceased husband, failing for a period of over one year to take any action to secure payment of the checks to the client. The referee found that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) (deceit or misrepresentation); Disciplinary Rule 9-102(A) and Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.02(4) (improper handling of funds held in trust); and Disciplinary Rule 6 — 101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him).
On a second count the referee found that respondent, after being unable to locate wills he had previously drawn for the same client and her deceased husband, agreed to prepare a new will for her. Respondent failed to take action to prepare a new will for over eight months, following which he returned the recovered old wills. The referee found that respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
The referee recommended suspension for one year, proof of rehabilitation, and assessment of costs. We approve the recommended disciplinary measures.
Therefore, we hereby suspend respondent Leonard Lee Sheldon from the practice of law for a period of one year and thereafter until he shall have proven his fitness to resume the practice of law. We also assess against him the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $800.77, the payment of such amount in full to be a further condition precedent to reinstatement. Respondent will be allowed thirty days from the date of this order to close out his practice.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Jordan, 682 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1996)…ommendation is faulty because the referee allegedly considered inappropriate factors. After reviewing the record, we find that neither of these issues warrants discussion. . Florida Bar v. Fussell, 474 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1985); Florida Bar v. Sheldon, 446 So. 2d 1081 (Fla.1984); Florida Bar v. Gunther, 390 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1980); Florida Bar v. Seidler, 375 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1979); Florida Bar v. Reed, 299 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1974); Florida Bar v. Zokvic, 216 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1968).…