THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
BARRY R. SHAPIRO, 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 Bar sought disciplinary action against attorney Barry R. Shapiro for multiple counts of professional misconduct. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's findings and disbarred Shapiro from the practice of law, finding his conduct violated numerous professional responsibility rules and integration rules.
The court approved the referee's findings that Shapiro committed twelve of thirteen alleged counts of misconduct in violation of multiple professional responsibility rules and integration rules, and disbarred him from the practice of law effective immediately. His petition for reinstatement was dismissed as moot.
[1] A lawyer's petition for reinstatement is moot when the referee recommends disbarment based on cumulative misconduct.
[2] Misconduct constituting a felony or misdemeanor violates the Florida Bar Integration Rule.
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“In view of the cumulative nature of respondent's conduct, we approve the referee's findings of fact and recommendation of discipline.”
The court's rationale for affirming disbarment, emphasizing the cumulative effect of multiple violations as justifying the harshest sanction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Barry R. Shapiro was already under suspension from a prior disciplinary action. The Florida Bar filed a multi-count complaint alleging thir…
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 Rules Of The Code Of Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
[*843] PER CURIAM.
We review the reports of the referee concerning respondent Barry R. Shapiro’s petition for reinstatement (No. 63,411) and a multi-count complaint filed against him by The Florida Bar (No. 63,761). Respondent is currently under suspension, The Florida Bar v. Shapiro, 413 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1982), and has petitioned for review of the referee’s reports.
The Florida Bar’s complaint alleges thirteen counts of misconduct and the referee finds respondent guilty of twelve of the thirteen counts, specifically finding that respondent violated The Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.02(3)(a) and (b) (conduct contrary to honesty, justice, or good morals, and misconduct constituting a felony or misdemeanor); and Rule 11.02(4) and the bylaws relating thereto (misuse of trust accounts). The referee also finds that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: D.R. 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), (4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), (5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) (conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law); D.R. 2-110 (improper withdrawal from employment); D.R. 5-101(A) (accepting employment affecting his own financial and business interests); D.R. 5-104(A) (improper business relations with a client); D.R. 6-101(A)(l) (accepting employment for a legal matter which he was not competent to handle), (2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation), and (3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him); D.R. 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for legal services), and (3) (damaging a client during the course of a professional relationship); D.R. 7-105(A) (threatening criminal prosecution solely to obtain advantage in a civil matter); and D.R. 9-102 (improper trust fund maintenance). In light of his recommendation of disbarment, the referee suggests that respondent’s petition for reinstatement is moot.
In view of the cumulative nature of respondent’s conduct, we approve the referee’s findings of fact and recommendation of discipline. Barry R. Shapiro is disbarred from the practice of law, effective immediately. His petition for reinstatement is dismissed as moot. Costs are assessed against respondent in the amount of $5,093.54. In accordance with the referee’s recommendation, respondent is also directed to make restitution as follows:
Susan Feliciano $ 25.00
Arthur Cole $500.00
Clarence Johnson $100.00
Gloria Mountain $ 50.00
Client’s Security Fund of The Florida Bar $200.00
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Newman, 513 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1987)…(Fla.1981) (attorney’s continued and irresponsible pattern of converting client funds warrants disbarment). We also agree with the referee that the cumulative nature of Newman’s misconduct warrants disbarment as well. See The Florida Bar v. Shapiro, 450 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1984). Although we agree with Newman’s contention that it is improper for a referee to consider an attorney’s continuous denial of guilt when selecting a recommended discipline, we do not believe that such a consideration affected the referee’…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Knowles, 534 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1988)…a.1987); The Florida Bar v. Breed, 378 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1979). Moreover, the cumulative nature of Knowles’ other conduct of not attending to his work and his unavailability to clients warrants a severe penalty. [*1159] See The Florida Bar v. Shapiro, 450 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1984). We hereby suspend Knowles for a period of three years and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation, pay the cost of this proceeding, and make restitution to his clients. In order to protect his clients and close out his practi…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Shapiro, 413 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1982)