THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GARY H. NEELY, 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 disciplined attorney Gary H. Neely for gross neglect in managing his trust account, specifically for improperly handling a client's insurance check and maintaining accounting errors. The Court suspended Neely for 60 days and placed him on two-year probation with mandatory trust account audits, finding that while the violations were not dishonest and caused no client harm, his prior disciplinary history warranted enhanced sanctions.
The Court found a violation of Integration Rule 11.02(4) concerning trust account administration and, considering Neely's prior disciplinary history, imposed a 60-day suspension and two-year probation with mandatory periodic and unannounced audits of his trust account records. Although the violation was not dishonest and caused no client injury, the prior disciplinary record justified more severe discipline than the typical public reprimand and probation.
[1] Gross neglect in the management of a trust account can constitute a violation of rules concerning trust account administration.
[2] Prior disciplinary history may warrant more severe discipline than would ordinarily be imposed for a current ethical violation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Although the discipline for a violation of this kind ordinarily would be a public reprimand and probation with supervision of trust account records, we find that, because respondent has been disciplined on two prior occasions, a more severe discipline is appropriate in this proceeding.”
Establishes that prior disciplinary history justifies enhanced sanctions beyond the typical remedy for trust account violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNeely represented a client in an automobile accident case. After the client discharged him, he received a $2,948.51 personal injury protection benefit…
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 Gross Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
[*536] PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before us on the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of the referee recommending that Gary H. Neely be suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Respondent was charged with a number of ethical violations arising out of his representation of a client in an automobile accident case. After discharging respondent, the client became aware that respondent had received a check for personal injury protection benefits in the amount of $2,948.51 from her insurance carrier. Respondent had signed the client’s name to the check and deposited it into his trust account. Later, when respondent wrote a check to the client’s new attorney, the trust account contained insufficient funds to cover the check.
The record established numerous accounting errors in respondent’s trust account and a failure by respondent to properly supervise this account. The referee found the respondent guilty of gross neglect in the management of the trust account, but expressly found no proof of dishonesty and determined that the client suffered no harm from respondent’s actions.
We find a violation of Integration Rule 11.02(4) concerning the administration of trust accounts,1 and agree with the referee that the violation was not intentional but the result of gross neglect. Although the discipline for a violation of this kind ordinarily would be a public reprimand and probation with supervision of trust account records, we find that, because respondent has been disciplined on two prior occasions,2 a more severe discipline is appropriate in this proceeding. Because the referee found no dishonesty by respondent and no injury to his client, we do not believe the discipline need be as severe as recommended by the referee. In our opinion, a 60-day suspension and a two-year period of probation is the appropriate discipline.
Accordingly, respondent, Gary H. Neely, is hereby suspended from The Florida Bar for a period of 60 days and placed on probation for two years commencing with his reinstatement. During the two-year probationary period, respondent’s trust account records shall be subject to periodic and unannounced audit by The Florida Bar. Respondent shall pay The Florida Bar’s costs in auditing these records. The suspension shall be effective thirty days from the date this opinion is final, thereby giving respondent time to protect the interests of his clients.
Judgment for the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $1,353.22 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. . Evidence considered by the referee as establishing a violation of Disciplinary Rules 9-102(B)(1) and 9-102(B)(4) is more properly limited to the violation of Integration Rule 11.-02(4).
. In The Florida Bar v. Neely, 372 So. 2d 89 (Fla.1979), respondent was suspended for 90 days for self-dealing and misrepresentation; in The Florida Bar v. Neely, 417 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1982), he was publicly reprimanded and placed on one year’s probation for neglect of a legal matter.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Florida BAR v. Neely, 587 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1991)…for failing to prosecute a criminal appeal, as reported in The Florida Bar v. Neely, 417 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1982); (3) a sixty-day suspension and two years’ probation for trust account record-keeping violations, as reported in The Florida Bar v. Neely, 488 So. 2d 535 (Fla.1986); (4) a three-month suspension and two years’ probation for failing to deposit a client’s money into escrow, inadequate trust account records, failure to provide his client with an accounting, and failure to properly supervise his bookkeep…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 675 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1996)…sbarment order, particularly in light of Neely’s prior disciplinary record. See Florida Bar v. Neely, 587 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1991); Florida Bar v. Neely, 540 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1989); Florida Bar v. Neely, 502 So. 2d 1237 (Fla.1987); Florida Bar v. Neely, 488 So. 2d 535 (Fla.1986); Florida Bar v. Neely, 417 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1982); Florida Bar v. Neely, 372 So. 2d 89 (Fla.1979). We hereby disbar Gary H. Neely permanently from the practice of law in Florida. We order Neely to return within thirty days of the filing o…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 540 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1989)…Rules 5-1.1(c) (failure to maintain trust accounting records) and 5-1.-2(b)(2) (failure to maintain deposit records). . The Florida Bar v. Neely, 502 So. 2d 1237 (Fla.1987) (three-month suspension with two-year probation); The Florida Bar v. Neely, 488 So. 2d 535 (Fla.1986) (sixty-day suspension with two-year probation); The Florida Bar v. Neely, 417 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1982) (public reprimand and one-year probation); The Florida Bar v. Neely, 372 So. 2d 89 (Fla.1979) (ninety-day suspension followed by six-month…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 372 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1979)
- THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 417 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1982)