THE FLORIDA BAR. IN RE JOHN V. BAUM
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 attorney is reinstated to membership in good standing of The Florida Bar.
An attorney, previously suspended, petitioned for reinstatement after becoming eligible. The referee conducted a hearing and recommended reinstatement…
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 Attorney Reinstatement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on the report of the referee concerning Baum’s petition for reinstatement as a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Baum was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on February 10, 1978. The Florida Bar v. Baum, 355 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1978). In a final disciplinary judgment, Baum was suspended for two years with reinstatement conditioned upon proof of rehabilitation. The Florida Bar v. Baum, 369 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1979). He became eligible to apply for reinstatement in 1980. Baum submitted his petition for reinstatement on January 9, 1984.
The referee conducted a hearing and recommended that Baum be reinstated. The referee’s report and recommendation are not contested.
We accept the findings and recommendation of the referee. Baum is hereby reinstated as a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Shupack, 523 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1988)…reinstatement. The Bar argues that the referee should have imposed a suspension of six months on Shupack because, in light of Shupack’s prior disciplinary history for similar misconduct, a harsher punishment is in order. The Florida Bar v. Shupack, 453 So. 2d 404 (Fla.1984) (thirty day suspension imposed for violating Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4)). Although we agree the prior history of a respondent should be considered when determining the appropriate punishment for present misconduct, we reject the Bar’s…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Baum, 355 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1978)
- THE Florida BAR v. Baum, 369 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1979)