THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ROBERT W. BOWLES, JR., 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 affirmed the referee's findings that attorney Robert W. Bowles, Jr. committed numerous disciplinary violations including charging excessive fees, allowing unauthorized practice of law by nonlawyer staff, neglecting client matters, mishandling trust funds, and failing to represent clients' interests. The Court disbarred Bowles for ten years and required completion of an ethics course.
The Court found Bowles guilty of numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility across multiple cases and counts, including violations related to excessive fees, unauthorized practice, neglect of legal matters, failure to represent client interests, improper trust fund management, and misconduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law. The Court imposed a ten-year disbarment and required ethics training.
[1] Charging and collecting a clearly excessive fee violates Disciplinary Rules 2-106(A) and 2-106(B).
[2] Allowing nonlawyer personnel to counsel clients constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and violates Disciplinary Rule 3-104(A).
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“The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of misconduct justifying disciplinary measures and recommends that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida for a period of ten years and that he be required to take and pass a course in legal ethics.”
Establishes the referee's overall recommendation for disbarment and the disciplinary remedy imposed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBowles was charged with multiple disciplinary violations across several cases involving clients. The violations included: charging excessive fees; all…
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 Rules Of The Code Of Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary proceedings by The Florida Bar against Robert W. Bowles, Jr., a member of The Florida Bar, are presently before us on complaints 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 made the following recommendations as to guilt or innocence:
“As to Case No. 66,308
COUNT I
(09A83C19)
“I recommend that the respondent be found guilty and specifically that he be found guilty of violating the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: DR 2-106(A) and 2-106(B) for charging and collecting a clearly excessive fee under the circumstances.
As to Count II
(09A83C21)
“I recommend that the respondent be found guilty and specifically that he be found guilty of violating the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: DR 3-104(A) for allowing nonlawyer personnel to counsel clients, thereby engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; 3-104(C) for not insuring compliance by nonlawyer personnel with the Code of Professional Responsibility; 6-101(A)(3) for neglect of a legal matter and 7-101(A)(l) for intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law.
As to Case No. 66,397
COUNT I
(09A83C27)
As to Count II
(09A83C46)
ings; 7-101(A)(2) by failing to carry out his contract of employment with a client.
As to Count III
(09A83C68)
“I recommend that the respondent be found guilty and that specifically he be found guilty of violating the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: DR 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting to prosecute the Air Force claim on behalf of his client; 7-101(A)(l) for failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client; 7-101(A)(2) for intentionally failing to fulfill his contract of employment with Mr. Wilson and 9-102(B)(4) for failing to promptly deliver possession of property entrusted to him by a client during his representation, after request for their return.
As to Count IV
(09A84C29)
“I recommend that the respondent be found guilty and specifically that he be found guilty of violating the following Integration Rules of The Florida Bar and/or Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: Integration Rule 11.02(3)(a) for engaging in conduct contrary to honesty, justice and good morals, by using trust funds for other than the clients’ purposes; 11.02(4)(b) and the associated Bylaws for failing to comply with the trust accounting procedures and keeping prescribed records of those trust accounts for a period of six years; Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 1-102(A)(5) for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to produce all records of his trust accounts, as required by two properly served subpoena duces tecum; 1-102(A)(6) for engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law by maintaining trust accounts in which shortages of individual clients’ funds existed, and failing to follow the record-keeping requirements of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar and Bylaws thereto; 9-102(A) by allowing his personal funds to remain on deposit in the trust account in amounts more than reasonably enough to pay bank charges, thus constituting commingling of personal funds in his trust account; 9-102(B)(3) for failing to maintain complete records of all funds of a client coming into his possession.
As to Count V
(09A84C23)
“I recommend that the respondent be found guilty of violating the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: DR 3-104(A) by failing to insure that nonlawyer personnel perform only delegated duties, supervised by a licensed attorney, and thereby permitting the unauthorized practice of law; 3-104(C) by failing to exercise a high standard of care to assure compliance by nonlawyer personnel with the Code of Professional Responsibility; 6-101(A)(2) by handling a legal matter which he knew or should have known he was not competent to handle without unreasonable delay or expense to his client; 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
As to Count VI
(09A84C24)
As to Count VII
(09A84C30)
Case No. 66,886
As to Count I
(09A84C79)
As to Count II
(09A84C73)
The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of misconduct justifying disciplinary measures and recommends that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida for a period of ten years and that he be required to take and pass a course in legal ethics.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Accordingly, respondent, Robert W. Bowles, Jr., is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida for a period of ten years, effective immediately, and respondent is required to take and pass a course in legal ethics prior to readmission.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $5,590.18 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Castle, 512 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1987)…cial to the administration of justice); DR 1-101(A)(6) (conduct reflecting adversely on the fitness to practice law); and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter). See The Florida Bar v. Murray, 489 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1986); The Florida Bar v. Bowles, 480 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1985); and The Florida Bar v. Larkin, 420 So. 2d 1080 (Fla.1982). The referee also recommended that Castle be found guilty of violating DR 7-101(A)(2) (intentionally failing to carry out an employment contract) and DR 7-101(A)(3) (intentional…