THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GERALD DAVID BABBITT, 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 Gerald David Babbitt from practice for sixty days for violating Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
An attorney who violates Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation shall be suspended from practice for sixty days.
[1] An attorney who engages in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) is subject to suspension from t…
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 Gerald David Babbitt, an attorney, violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in conduct…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This attorney-discipline proceeding is before us on the complaint of The Florida Bar, the respondent’s conditional guilty plea for consent judgment, and the uncontested report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 15, Fla. Const. In his conditional guilty plea, respondent acknowledges his violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar. The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty in accordance with his conditional plea and that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty days.
We approve the referee’s findings of fact and recommended discipline. Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law for sixty days, effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion, thereby allowing him time 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 the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $300 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, Acting C.J., and ALDERMAN, McDonald and SHAW, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., dissents with an opinion.
EHRLICH, Justice,
dissenting.
I would decline to accept the conditional guilty plea. I appreciate the fact that the plea was the result of negotiations with the bar. Nonetheless, the offense with which respondent is charged involves the preparation and use of a forged use and occupancy permit in connection with a real estate closing. If the respondent be guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he should be disbarred. The offense is too serious to be dealt with on the basis of the negotiated plea. I therefore dissent.