THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
HAROLD E. CASETY, 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 disbarred an attorney who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and firearm use in California, finding violations of disciplinary rules governing moral turpitude and fitness to practice law.
An attorney who pleads guilty to voluntary manslaughter and personal use of a firearm violates disciplinary rules regarding illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law, warranting disbarment.
[1] Guilty pleas to voluntary manslaughter and personal use of a firearm constitute violations of disciplinary rules governing illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and c…
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 intelligenceHarold E. Casety, Jr., a Florida Bar member, pleaded guilty in California to voluntary manslaughter and personal use of a firearm, receiving a six-yea…
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 Contrary To Honesty, Justice, Or Good Morals cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Bar brought this disciplinary action against Harold E. Casety, Jr., a member of the Florida Bar, in response to his guilty pleas in California to voluntary manslaughter and personal use of a firearm. As a result of those pleas, Casety received a six-year prison term. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15, Florida Constitution. The referee recommended that Casety be found guilty of violating disciplinary rules 1-102(A)(1) (violating a disciplinary rule), 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting upon fitness to practice law), as well as article XI, rule 11.02(3)(a) (conduct contrary to honesty, justice, or good morals) of the integration rule. In light of these findings the referee recommended that Casety be disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction. We adopt the uncontested * referee’s report and approve the recommended discipline.
Accordingly, Casety is hereby disbarred, effective immediately. Judgment for costs in the amount of $150.00 is hereby entered against Casety, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. *
Casety has failed to answer the Florida Bar’s pleadings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gollwitzer v. State, 509 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…he trial court sentenced the appellant, William Scott Gollwitzer, based on the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the sentence. This was in accordance with the law as perceived by the Florida Supreme Court. See, e.g., Patterson v. State, 499 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1987), vacated, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 3206, 96 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987); Van Horn v. State, 498 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1986); Wilkerson v. State, 494 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1986), vacated, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 3206, 96 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987); State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d…
-
Patterson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1987)…son v. State, 486 So. 2d 74, 76 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We approved the result of the district court’s opinion, finding that, on the authority of Jackson, we had answered the certified question in the affirmative in Wilkerson. Patterson v. State, 499 So. 2d 831 (Fla.), vacated, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3206, 96 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987). Having reconsidered this matter in light of Miller, we answer the certified question in the negative, disapprove the district court’s decision, and remand to the district court for fu…
-
Antel v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 522 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…although not punished as severely as a premeditated crime, is still considered “contrary to justice, honest, principle, or good morals.” State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 108 Fla. 607, 146 So. 660, 661 (1933); c.f., The Florida Bar v. Casety, 499 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1986); Kiner v. State Board of Education, 344 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The burden of proof of rehabilitation was therefore placed on Antel at the hearing. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla…