THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
RONALD L. DYKES, 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 court held that the attorney committed multiple disciplinary rule violations and approved the referee's recommendation for suspension.
[1] Neglecting a legal matter entrusted to an attorney constitutes a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3).
[2] Intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client is a violation of Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A)(1).
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against attorney Ronald L. Dykes based on complaints. A referee found Dykes guilty of violating sev…
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 Misuse Of Trust Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary proceedings by The Florida Bar against Ronald L. Dykes, a member of The Florida Bar, are presently before us on complaints of The Florida Bar and report of referee. Pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.06(9)(b) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the referee’s report and record were duly filed with this Court. No petition for review pursuant to Integration Rule of The Florida Bar 11.09(1) has been filed.
Having considered the pleadings and evidence, the referee recommended the following:
Case 65,072 As to Count I (07A83C30) (Martha Beach) I recommend the respondent be found guilty and specifically he be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, 7-101(A)(l) for intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client and 7-101(A)(2) for intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment. As to Count II (07A83C37) (Marie Hayward) I recommend the respondent be found guilty and specifically that he be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. I further recommend he be found not guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(6) for other misconduct reflecting adversely on his fitness to practice law, 7-101(A)(l) for intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client and 7-101(A)(2) for intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment. As to Count III (07A84C07) (Barbara W. Eubank) I recommend the respondent be found guilty and specifically he be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. I further recommend he be found not guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(6) for other misconduct reflecting adversely on his fitness [to practice] law, 7-101(A)(l) for intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client and 7-101(A)(2) for intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment. As to Count IV (07A83C47) (Mrs. Bill Vogenitz) I recommend the respondent be found guilty and specifically he be found guilty of violating Integration Rule 11.02(3)(a) for engaging in conduct contrary to honesty, justice or good morals in the misuse of trust funds; 11.02(4) for misusing trust funds;. 11.02(4)(c) and the corresponding Bylaw for failing to maintain his trust account recordkeeping in substantial minimum compliance with the trust account requirements as well as Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) for conduct involving . misrepresentation, 1-102(A)(6) for other misconduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law, 9-102(B)(3) for failure to maintain complete records in the trust account and 9-102(B)(4) for misuse of trust funds. Case 65,409 (07A84C55) (Mr. and Mrs. David L. Kelly) I recommend the respondent be found guilty of violating the following Disciplinary Rules: 1-102(A)(6) for engaging in other misconduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, 6 — 101(A)(3) for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, 7-101(A)(l) for intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his clients, 7-101(A)(2) for intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment. I note that the Bar’s complaint erroneously lists the latter rule as 7-102(A)(2). This appears to be an error. The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of misconduct justifying disciplinary measures and recommends that respondent be suspended for a period of six months and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation as provided in Rule 11.-10(4) of The Florida Bar’s Integration Rule.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Accordingly, respondent, Ronald L. Dykes, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation as provided in article XI, Rule 11.-10(4) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar. Respondent’s suspension shall be effective June 10, 1985, thereby giving respondent 30 days to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients. Respondent shall accept no new business from the date of this order. Judgment for costs in the amount of $4,528.88 is hereby entered against respondent, for which let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and ALDERMAN, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Harper, 518 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1988)…od would best reflect the appropriate discipline under the facts of this case. Six-month suspensions were given to the attorneys under somewhat similar circumstances in The Florida Bar v. Padgett, 481 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1986); The Florida Bar v. Dykes, 469 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1985); The Florida Bar v. Bryan, 396 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1981); The Florida Bar v. Welty, 382 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1980). We therefore adopt the referee’s report as to guilt and find that Woodrow Harper violated article XI, rule 11.02(4) of the former…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Dykes, 513 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1987)…e disbarred. No petition for review has been filed. We consider the report pursuant to rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. On June 10, 1985, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months. The Florida Bar v. Dykes, 469 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1985). By the terms of the suspension, respondent was to be required to prove rehabilitation before being reinstated to active membership in The Florida Bar. He has not been reinstated. The Florida Bar’s complaint contained four counts. On cou…