THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
DEVITT J. ADAMS, 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 Devitt J. Adams for sixty days for failing to disclose a property sale to a business partner and failing to timely account for funds received as trustee.
An attorney may be disciplined for failing to completely disclose essential matters in business transactions with non-clients.
[1] An attorney may be disciplined for failing to completely disclose essential matters in business transactions with non-clients.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent, acting as trustee for a group of investors, sold property but failed to notify a business partner of the sale and failed to make a timely …
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 Unethical Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before us upon the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of a referee. Neither The Florida Bar nor the respondent have petitioned for review of the report. We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 15, Fla. Const.; Fla.Bar Integr.Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.09.
The referee found that respondent engaged in unethical conduct by failing to notify a business partner of the sale of some property by respondent as trustee for a group of investors and failing to make a timely accounting of funds received from the sale. The referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days with automatic reinstatement and that he pay for the costs of these proceedings. It is uncontested that an attorney can be disciplined for failing to completely disclose essential matters in business transactions with non-clients. E.g., The Florida Bar v. Davis, 373 So. 2d 683 (Fla.1979); The Florida Bar v. Bennett, 276 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1973). We approve the referee’s findings of fact. Because neither party has sought review of the recommended discipline, we adopt it. See Fla.Bar Integr.Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.-09(3)(f). Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty days. He is allowed thirty days for the orderly closing of his practice. Respon dent shall also pay to The Florida Bar $1,299.39, the costs of these proceedings.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, 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. Schultz, 712 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1998)…nting rules without willful intent. See Florida Bar v. Rogers, 583 So. 2d 1379, 1382 (Fla.1991). An attorney can also be disciplined for failing to completely disclose essential matters in business transactions with nonclients. Florida Bar v. Adams, 453 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1984) (suspending attorney for sixty days for failing to notify business partner of sale of some property while acting as trustee for a group of investors and failing to make a timely accounting of funds received from sale). Clearly, these cas…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Wasserman, 654 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1995)…sion for practicing law while under suspension for nonpayment of dues). In addition, this Court has ordered a sixty-day suspension for a lawyer who failed to disclose essential matters in business transactions with nonclients. The Fla. Bar v. Adams, 453 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1984) (ordering suspension when lawyer failed to notify a business partner of the sale of property by lawyer as trustee for a group of investors and failing to make a timely accounting of funds received from the sale). Although Wasserman did n…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Jennings, 482 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1986)…e wrist, and I am at an utter loss to fathom an explanation why The Florida Bar is seemingly satisfied with the referee’s recommendation. The fact that the misconduct took place in a non-lawyer-client setting is no defense, The Florida Bar v. Adams, 453 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1984) and the fact that the victims were in-laws can hardly be a mitigating factor. When we talk about “conduct contrary to honesty, justice or good morals, ... involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” and “other misconduct a…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Bennett, 276 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1973)
- Fla. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs re: Ross Hanan Manella, 373 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1979)
- THE Florida BAR v. Johnson E. Davis, III, 373 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1979)