THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
DONALD J. SWANSON, 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 brought a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Donald J. Swanson for ethical violations including dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's findings and imposed a twelve-month suspension from practice, subject to rehabilitation requirements and completion of an ethics course.
The Court approved the referee's findings that Swanson violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(a)(1), (a)(4), and (a)(6) under Count One of the complaint, while finding him not guilty under Count Two. The Court suspended Swanson from practice for twelve months subject to rehabilitation, completion of an ethics course, and payment of costs.
[1] A lawyer violates disciplinary rules by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
[2] A lawyer violates disciplinary rules by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”
Statement of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(a)(4) that Swanson was found to have violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald J. Swanson, a Florida Bar member, was found to have committed ethical violations under the Disciplinary Rules. The referee conducted a hearing …
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 Proof Of Rehabilitation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against Donald J. Swanson, a member of The Florida Bar, is presently before us on complaint 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 found respondent guilty of Count One of the Complaint of The Florida Bar as to each ethical violation: Disciplinary Rule l-102(a)(l) — A lawyer shall not violate a disciplinary rule, Disciplinary Rule l-102(a)(4) — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and Disciplinary Rule l-102(a)(6) — A lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The referee further found respondent not guilty as to Count Two of the Complaint of The Florida Bar as to each of the same ethical violations.
The referee recommends that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a fixed, period of twelve months and thereafter, until:
1. He shall prove his rehabilitation pursuant to Rule 11.10(4);
2. Enroll in, and successfully complete with a grade of no less than “C”, or its equivalent, from an accredited law school in the State of Florida, a course in Ethical Conduct by attorneys authorized to practice law in the State of Florida;
3. Pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $1,442.63. Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Accordingly, respondent, Donald J. Swanson is suspended from the practice of law for a period of twelve (12) months on the conditions set forth above. Respondent’s suspension shall be 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 $1,442.63 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, A.C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDonald and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.