THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GREGORY K. JONES, 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 adopts the referee's report and suspends the respondent attorney for sixty days.
The Florida Bar filed complaints against attorney Gregory K. Jones for alleged misconduct. Jones entered a conditional guilty plea, admitting violatio…
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 Suspension From Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon complaints by The Florida Bar, this Court appointed a referee to conduct a hearing regarding Jones’ alleged misconduct. Jones tendered a conditional guilty plea for consent judgment,* acknowledging his violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6) and 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and article XI, Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rulé of The Florida Bar. The referee recommended that Jones be found guilty in accordance with his conditional plea and that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty (60) days.
Neither side contests the referee’s report which we hereby adopt. Respondent, Gregory K. Jones, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty (60) days effective August 2, 1985, thereby giving respondent thirty (30) days to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients. Respondent shall not accept any new business.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $529.35 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, A.C.J., and ALDERMAN, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. *
We feel it unnecessary to publish the full text of the plea. The Court files are open for inspection.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
Gayson Mills v. State, 822 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2002)…ition of a habitual violent felony offender sentencing following the reclassification, pursuant to section 784.07, Florida Statutes (1997), of appellant’s attempted robbery offense for use of a firearm.”). The Court’s decision in State v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730, 732 (Fla.1985), is instructive in this regard. In Whitehead, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm. The issue addressed by this Court was whether it constituted an improper double enhancement to apply both section 775.…
-
Rasley v. State, 878 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…sentences constitute an impermissible double enhancement. We cannot agree. This issue was decided adversely to appellant’s position in Brown v. State, 460 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), approved, 475 So. 2d 1243 (Fla.1985), and State v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1985). In Whitehead, the supreme court concluded subsections (1) and (2) of section 775.087 are not mutually exclusive. Subsection (1) provides that in cases in which a person is convicted of the commission of a felony with a firearm, and the u…
-
Roberts v. State, 923 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…r issue, the supreme court has concluded that where two enhancement provisions serve different purposes and the legislature has not indicated that the provisions are to be mutually exclusive, both enhancements may be imposed. See State v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1985). Using this analysis, it is clear that there is no double jeopardy prohibition against applying a habitual offender enhancement to a felony already reclassified under section 775.087(1). Each statute serves a distinctly separate purpose.…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence