THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
NELAN SWEET, 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 court approved the referee's findings and recommendations, imposing a public reprimand and costs.
Respondent attorney faced a two-count complaint for neglecting legal matters. In the first count, he delayed settling an estate, and in the second, he…
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 Mitigating Factors In Attorney Discipline cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1261] EHRLICH, Justice.
This disciplinary proceeding is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar, respondent’s guilty plea and the uncontested report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The bar filed a two-count complaint against respondent. The first count involved respondent’s representation of two relatives of a deceased in settling various aspects of the deceased’s estate. This representation commenced in May 1980, but had not been completed by November 1984. The respondent admitted that this delay was a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him).
The second count involved respondent’s representation of a client who sustained personal injury resulting from a fall on a dance floor. The referee found that this client was led to believe that respondent would represent her, even though respondent denied the existence of an attorney-client relationship. The statute of limitations evidently expired, and respondent paid this client $500 from his own funds as a settlement. Respondent admitted that this conduct was also a violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3).
The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of both counts. The referee found as a mitigating factor in Count I, that respondent’s son had been brutally murdered a few years prior to this event and that respondent had “considerable difficulty” going into the probate division of the circuit court. The referee recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand and that respondent bear the cost of these proceedings.
We approve the referee’s findings and recommendations. Publication of this opinion in the Southern Reporter shall serve as respondent’s public reprimand. Judgment for costs in the amount of $832.30 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Merrill Tunsil, 503 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1986)…her erase the grievous nature of respondent’s misconduct in stealing clients’ funds, nor diminish it to the extent of warranting the same, punishment which has been meted out for much less serious offenses. For example, in The Florida Bar v. Piggee, 490 So. 2d 1260 (Fla.1986), a lawyer was suspended for sixty days for the possession of small quantities of cocaine and marijuana. Although we do not condone such conduct, we perceive a significant distinction between misconduct which does not injure clients or abu…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Taryn Xenia Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1999)…ed by Temmer involve neither previous misconduct nor violations of disciplinary terms, and offer little guidance here. See Florida Bar v. Levine, 498 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1986) (public reprimand for misdemeanor cocaine conviction); Florida Bar v. Piggee, 490 So. 2d 1260 (Fla.1986) (sixty-day suspension for cocaine possession where attorney had a “lack of prior criminal or disciplinary history”). Finally, in urging that the Bar’s primary motivation in seeking a ninety-one-day suspension is to simply punish her, Tem…