THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
STUART L. STEIN, 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 disciplined attorney Stuart L. Stein for mishandling and neglecting legal matters entrusted to him across three separate complaints. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the referees' recommendations and imposed public reprimands, a ten-day suspension, and costs totaling $2,905.41.
The Court affirmed the referees' recommendations in all three cases. In case no. 63,669, Stein received a public reprimand and $1,293.81 in costs for violating disciplinary rule 6-101(A)(2). In cases nos. 65,413 and 65,878, Stein received public reprimands for violating disciplinary rules 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6), a ten-day suspension commencing thirty days from the order, and $1,611.60 in costs.
[1] Competent substantial evidence supports a referee's recommendation of guilt in attorney disciplinary proceedings.
[2] A public reprimand and payment of costs are appropriate sanctions for violating disciplinary rule 6-101(A)(2).
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 intelligence“There is competent substantial evidence to support this recommendation.”
Establishes the evidentiary basis for affirming the referees' disciplinary findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStein faced three disciplinary complaints stemming from mishandling and neglect of legal matters. One complaint was heard by one referee; the other tw…
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 Rule 1-102(A)(6) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These three disciplinary proceedings against Stuart L. Stein, a member of The Florida Bar, stem from allegations of the mishandling and neglect of legal matters entrusted to Stein. One complaint was heard by one referee and the other two by another. Both referees have recommended a finding of guilt. There is competent substantial evidence to support this recommendation.1
In the first case the referee recommended a public reprimand and payment of costs. Stein, while initially objecting to this recommendation, withdrew his petition for review in that case (no. 63,669).2 The referee in the second two cases has recommended a public reprimand and a ten-day suspension plus payment of costs. Stein objects to both the public reprimand and the suspension.
Stein did present mitigating circumstances as to the disruption of his law practice caused by burglaries and other events. He has presented character evidence that he is a competent trustworthy lawyer. He contends that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant the stigma of a public reprimand. He also suggests that because there were “leaks” of these proceedings, punishment should be tempered. The source of the premature release of information is not known and, under the circumstances of this case, is not a factor. We have no hesitancy in affirming the referees’ recommendations. They are fair and just to Stein.
Accordingly, in case no. 63,669 Stuart Stein is hereby publicly reprimanded for violating disciplinary rule 6-101(A)(2). Costs in the amount of $1,293.81 are assessed against him.
In case nos. 65,413 and 65,878 Stuart Stein is publicly reprimanded for violating disciplinary rule 6-101(A)(3), Code of Professional Responsibility. We further find that these breaches also constituted a violation of disciplinary rule 1-102(A)(6). In addition to the public reprimand, Mr. Stein is suspended from the practice of law for ten working days. This suspension shall commence _ thirty days from this order. Costs in the amount of $1,611.60 are assessed against Mr. Stein in these two cases.
Judgment for the combined costs in the amount of $2,905.41 is entered for The Florida Bar against Stuart L. Stein, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. . There was a consent judgment to one charge.
. This case had been awaiting disposition of the two subsequent complaints.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Tobkin, 944 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2006)….1988) (engaging in deceptive billing practices); Fla. Bar v. Golden, 502 So. 2d 891, 892 (Fla.1987) (failing to file a probate action, failing to communicate with a client, and misrepresenting the status of the case to a client); Fla. Bar v. Stein, 471 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla.1985) (neglecting legal matters); Fla. Bar v. Lund, 410 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla.1982) (admitting a small portion of respondent’s testimony before the griev- [*226] anee committee was untrue, although he claimed it was unintentional). Tobkin,…
-
The Florida BAR v. Glick, 693 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1997)…n. See Florida Bar v. Golden, 502 So. 2d 891, 892 (Fla.1987) (finding ten-day suspension appropriate where attorney failed to file probate action, failed to communicate with client, and misrepresented status of case to client); Florida Bar v. Stein, 471 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla.1985) (suspending attorney for ten days for neglect of legal matters despite mitigation of disruption of law practice due to burglaries and supportive character evidence). We find this sanction appropriate especially in light of Glick’s mis…