THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
RUSSELL T. SICKMEN, 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 Russell T. Sickmen for violating professional responsibility rules involving dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of an attorney. The Florida Supreme Court upheld a three-year suspension nunc pro tunc from December 13, 1983, contingent on rehabilitation and passage of the ethics examination portion of the Bar exam.
The Court approved the referee's findings and recommendations, imposing a minimum three-year suspension from legal practice nunc pro tunc December 13, 1983, with reinstatement contingent on proof of rehabilitation and passage of the ethics portion of The Florida Bar examination. The Court also entered judgment for costs of $150 against respondent.
[1] A lawyer's conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation violates Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4).
[2] Conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law violates Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6).
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 found respondent guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law)”
Establishes the specific violations of professional conduct rules that justified discipline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Russell T. Sickmen pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, a federal felony. He was found guilty by the referee of violating Discip…
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 is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and the uncontested report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The referee found respondent guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law) of The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. The referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years nunc pro tunc December 13, 1983 (the date of his interim suspension), and thereafter until he has proven his rehabilitation as provided in article XI, Rule 11.10(4), of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, and that respondent be required to pass the ethics portion of The Florida Bar examination prior to his reinstatement.
We approve the referee’s findings and recommendations. Respondent is hereby suspended from legal practice in this state for a minimum of three years nunc pro tunc December 13, 1983.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $150 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., dissents with an opinion.
EHRLICH, Justice,
dissenting.
Respondent pled guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, which is a felony under federal law. I am of the opinion that the proper discipline is disbarment, although I recognize that respondent, if disbarred, could apply for readmission after three years and that as a practical matter, the time period is the same as that provided by the Court. The big difference, in my opinion, is this. The Court’s judgment requires respondent to pass the Ethics portion of The Florida Bar examination prior to his reinstatement. If disbarred, he would have to pass all parts of The Florida Bar examination. It appears to me that a three-year absence from the practice of law requires no less.
Even if the three year suspension which the Court imposes be a proper discipline, I am of the opinion that respondent should be required to pass all parts of The Florida Bar examination before being permitted to return to the practice.
I would, therefore, pursuant to Integration Rule 11.09(f), direct the parties to submit briefs directed to the suitability of the disciplinary measure recommended by the referee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Fla. BAR In re Russell T. Sickmen, 523 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1988)…mends that the petition for reinstatement be granted. The [*155] Florida Bar has filed a petition for review and opposes reinstatement. The petitioner was suspended for a term of three years, effective December 13, 1983. The Florida Bar v. Sickmen, 491 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1986). As provided by article XI, rule 11.10(4) of the then-existing Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, proof of rehabilitation was to be required prior to reinstatement. As a further condition, the order of the Court provided “that responden…