THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
STEPHEN W. TOOTHAKER, 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 Stephen W. Toothaker for violations involving breach of fiduciary duty as an escrow agent and neglect of an estate administration matter. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the referee's findings and imposed a public reprimand, reimbursement obligations, and costs.
Toothaker violated all three disciplinary rules cited. As an escrow agent, he breached his fiduciary duty to the sellers through deceitful conduct and misrepresentation by failing to disclose material facts about the deposit check. In the estate matter, he neglected the legal representation by causing unreasonable delays in obtaining assets and making distributions with no legitimate cause.
[1] An attorney acting as an escrow agent owes a fiduciary duty to the principals involved in the transaction.
[2] An attorney breaches fiduciary duties by favoring their own client's interests over those of other principals and allowing their client to gain an improper advantage.
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“I find that Respondent acted deceitfully and misrepresented the true facts to the sellers by not disclosing that the check was not being deposited promptly, by refusing to answer the questions asked in their letters specifically about the date the check had been deposited and the date it had been dishonored and by refusing to faithfully disclose to his escrow principals all pertinent facts known to him concerning the dishonor of the deposit check.”
Establishes the deceitful conduct violating the dishonesty and misrepresentation rules in the escrow matter
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn Count I, Toothaker served as an escrow agent for a real estate transaction deposit check and breached his fiduciary duty to the sellers by favoring…
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 Conduct Adversely Reflecting On Fitness To Practice Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against Stephen W. Toothaker, a member of The Florida Bar, is presently before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and report of referee. No petition for review pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.09(1), has been filed.
Having considered the pleadings and evidence, the referee found in part as follows:
As to Count I
Count I alleges a violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6) which prohibit attorneys from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or in any other conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law. The facts surround a real estate contract, ... On this contract Stephen Toothaker, Esq. is listed as having received a deposit to be held in escrow....
I find that Respondent acted as an escrow agent. As such he had a fiduciary relationship to the sellers. I find that he breached this relationship by favoring his own client’s interests over those of the sellers and allowed his own client to gain an improper advantage. I find that the sellers were misled to their detriment by the real estate contract. That the sellers relied upon the representation that Respondent was an attorney and that as escrow agent he would be faithful to his fiduciary relationship. I find that Respondent acted deceitfully and misrepresented the true facts to the sellers by not disclosing that the check was not being deposited promptly, by refusing to answer the questions asked in their letters specifically about the date the check had been deposited and the date it had been dishonored and by refusing to faithfully disclose to his escrow principals all pertinent facts known to him concerning the dishonor of the deposit check.
As to Count II
Count II alleges a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), the neglect of a legal matter entrusted to an attorney. ...
In summary, Letters of Administration were issued in June of 1981, all claims were paid by December of 1981. For no explainable reason, safe deposit box assets were not obtained until March of 1982, no steps were taken to transfer the AT & T stock until August of 1982 and then it took two and a half months. In October of 1982 a distribution to all of the beneficiaries except the residual beneficiary was made. The residual beneficiary’s distribution was made in August of 1983 over two years after the Letters of Administration had been entered and a year and a half after Mr. Toothaker started receiving letters from Mr. Leonard on behalf of the heirs. This was a case with no particular complications.... I find that Respondent did violate Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. I find that as a direct result of his neglect the heirs, Mrs. Beatrice Goslee and Mr. Richard Remus had to expend $300.00 in attorney’s fees to Mr. William Leonard. I also find: that the heirs became extremely upset with the unnecessary delay; that the heirs were entitled to have their certified letters, inquiries from attorneys and phone calls answered; that the interested parties were entitled to be given a forthright explanation of the status of the case; and that there was ho real cause for delay in the case.
It is my opinion having observed the Respondent and having listened to the testimony of this case that Respondent is capable of competently practicing law. In these two instances he failed to maintain the necessary integrity required of an ethically responsible lawyer. The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and (6) and 6-101(A)(3) and that he receive a public reprimand and be required to reimburse the beneficiaries for the legal fees expended under the facts in Count II. Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Publication of this opinion in Southern Reporter will serve as respondent’s public reprimand and respondent is directed to reimburse the beneficiaries for the $300 in legal fees expended under the facts in Count II.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $1,433.95 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.