THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
CHARLES M. MIMS, 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 Charles M. Mims for violations of professional responsibility rules, including neglect of a case, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to appear at a scheduled pre-trial conference. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's findings and suspended Mims from practice for one year and until he proved rehabilitation.
The court found Mims not guilty of the conflict-of-interest allegations in Count I but guilty of violations under DR1-102(A)(1) and (5), DR6-101(A)(3), DR7-106(A), and DR7-106(C)(5), specifically for failing to comply with court orders, failing to appear at a scheduled pre-trial conference, and neglecting a case.
[1] A lawyer is not guilty of violating rules regarding conflicts of interest when their actions as trustee are consistent with the documents creating the trust relationship…
[2] A lawyer is guilty of violating disciplinary rules when they fail to comply with court orders, fail to appear at scheduled pre-trial conferences, and admit to neglecting…
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“his continued representation of Thomas and Greta Gurr did not involve the pre-Columbian art exhibit which was the subject of the trust, and thus no conflict was created between the Gurrs and the investors”
Establishes the basis for finding Mims not guilty of conflict-of-interest violations in Count I
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMims served as a trustee in a matter involving Thomas and Greta Gurr and others related to a pre-Columbian art exhibit. He continued to represent the …
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 Disciplinary Rules Of The Code Of Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against Charles M. Mims, a member of The Florida Bar, is presently before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and report of referee. Pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.06(9)(b) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the referee’s report and record were duly filed with this Court. No petition for review pursuant to Integration Rule of The Florida Bar 11.09(1) has been filed.
Having considered the pleadings and evidence, the referee found as follows: II. Findings of fact as to each item of misconduct of which the Respondent is charged. After considering all the pleadings and evidence before me, pertinent portions of which are commented on below, I find as follows:
(A) That a review of the exhibits and the testimony presented reveals that The Florida Bar has failed to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of violating DR5-105(B), DR5-105(C), DR5-104(A) or DR1-102(A)(6) as alleged in Count I of the Complaint. Rather, the evidence presented demonstrates that the actions of Respondent, in his capacity as trustee, were consistent with the documents creating the relationship of a trustee between himself, Thomas and Greta Gurr, Mae Mims, James D. Willis, and Lyman C. Jordan.
Further, his continued representation of Thomas and Greta Gurr did not involve the pre-Columbian art exhibit which was the subject of the trust, and thus no conflict was created between the Gurrs and the investors, Mae Mims, James D. Willis, and Lyman C. Jordan.
(B) Respondent does not contest the allegations contained in Count II of the Complaint that he violated DR6-101(A)(3), DR7-106(A) and DR7-106(C)(5)....
(C) A review of the evidence presented reveals that Respondent failed to comply with Court orders, failed to appear at a scheduled pre-trial conference and has admitted to neglecting a case before Judge William Stafford.
III. Recommendation as to whether or not the Respondent should be found guilty. I recommend that the Respondent be found not guilty of the allegations contained in Count I of the Complaint.
I further recommend that the Respondent be found guilty of the allegations contained in Count II of the Complaint, and specifically that he be found guilty of violating the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to-wit: DR1-102(A)(1) and (5), DR6-101(A)(3), DR7-106(A) and DR7-106(C)(5).
IV.Recommendation as to disciplinary measures to be applied. I recommend that the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of one (1) year and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation as provided in Rule 11.10(4). I-further recommend that Respondent be required to satisfactorily pass the ethics portion of The Florida Bar examination prior to the restoration of his privileges of membership in The Florida Bar. Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Accordingly, respondent, Charles M. Mims, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Florida, effective immediately, for a period of one (1) year and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation as provided in Rule 11.10(4). Respondent shall satisfactorily pass the ethics portion of The Florida Bar examination prior to the restoration of his privileges of membership in The Florida Bar. Judgment for costs in the amount of $1,247.00 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue. It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Mims, 532 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1988)…ts. Further, he has a history of disciplinary problems, having recently received a one-year suspension for neglecting a client’s legal matter, failing to comply with court orders, and failing to attend a pretrial conference. The Florida Bar v. Mims, 501 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla.1987). In the instant case, Mims has again neglected a client’s legal matter. The Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, § 9.22 (1987), sets forth the following aggravating factors justifying an enhanced sanction: (a) prior dis…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Witt, 626 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1993)…client’s action, the referee clearly could have recommended a more severe discipline. See, e.g., The Fla. Bar v. Bazley, 597 So. 2d 796 (Fla.1992) (imposing eight-month suspension for misrepresenting status of client’s claim); The Fla. Bar v. Mims, 501 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1987) (imposing one-year suspension for failure to comply with court orders and appear at scheduled pretrial conference, and for neglect of case). Thus, we find no merit to Witt’s argument that suspension is not appropriate in this case. Accor…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Barcus, 697 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1997)…respondent, who represented the plaintiff in a legal malpractice case, received a one-year suspension for misrepresenting facts to the court and engaging in a pattern of ex parte communications with the court. The Bar also cites Florida Bar v. Mims, 501 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1987), in which the respondent received a one-year suspension as a result of his failure to comply with court orders, failure to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference, and neglect of a legal matter; and Florida Bar v. Witt, 626 So. 2d 1358…