THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
STANLEY H. HELM, 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 successfully obtained disbarment of attorney Stanley H. Helm for eighteen violations of disciplinary rules, including incompetence, neglect, fee violations, and conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law.
An attorney who fails to respond to disciplinary complaints and whose conduct demonstrates multiple violations of disciplinary rules governing competence, diligence, fee handling, and client representation shall be disbarred.
[1] An attorney who fails to respond to disciplinary complaints and whose conduct violates multiple disciplinary rules governing competence, diligence, fee handling, and clie…
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 intelligenceThe Florida Bar filed two complaints against Helm charging eighteen instances of violating bar disciplinary rules. Helm's whereabouts had been unknown…
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 Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Flórida Bar has filed two complaints against Helm, a member of the bar, charging him with eighteen instances of violating the rules regulating the bar. The bar notified Helm by both regular and certified mail, but Helm has never responded to nor appeared in these proceedings.* After hearing this matter, the referee recommends that Helm be found guilty of violating disciplinary rules 1-101(A)(1) (violating a disciplinary rule) and (A)(6) (engaging in conduct that reflects adversely on fitness to practice law), 2-110(A)(2) (withdrawing from employment with resulting prejudice to client) and (A)(3) (failing to refund fees upon withdrawal), 6-101(A)(l) (incompetency to handle client’s legal matters), (A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation), and (A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him), and 7-101(A)(l) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), (A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment), and (A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a client). The referee also recommends that Helm be disbarred.
Neither Helm nor the bar contests the referee’s report and recommendations, and we hereby adopt them. Stanley H. Helm, therefore, is disbarred, effective immediately upon the filing of this opinion. Judgment for costs in the amount of $1789.36 is hereby entered against Helm, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and McDONALD, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. *
Helm's whereabouts have been unknown since approximately March 1983; all certified mail sent to his last-known address has been returned unclaimed.