THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ROBERT VERNON BOOKMAN, 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 sought disbarred attorney Robert Vernon Bookman for misappropriating client funds and abandoning his law practice. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's findings and recommendation, striking Bookman's name from the roll of attorneys and imposing costs.
Bookman violated multiple Disciplinary Rules (9-102(A), 9-102(B)(1)-(4)) and Integration Rule 11.02(4) governing client trust accounts and safekeeping of client funds. The Court approved disbarment as the appropriate sanction.
[1] A lawyer violates disciplinary rules by failing to deposit client funds in an identifiable bank account, failing to notify a client of the receipt of funds, failing to id…
[2] Money entrusted to an attorney for a specific purpose is held in trust and must be applied only to that purpose.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Respondent has abandoned his law practice without notifying his clients, absconded with his client's money and cannot be located.”
Establishes the factual basis for the disciplinary complaint and the severity of Bookman's misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Bookman was retained by a client to invest her savings. The client gave Bookman $16,000 on February 3, 1981, and $52,268 on March 6, 1981, …
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 Attorney Trust Account Management cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before the Court pursuant to The Florida Bar’s complaint and the referee’s uncontested report. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Respondent, a member of The Florida Bar, was retained by a client to invest her savings funds. The client allowed respondent to pool her funds with his own money and treat these funds as his own for investment purposes. Respondent’s client gave him $16,000 on February 3, 1981, and an additional $52,268 on March 6, 1981. The client has been unable to contact respondent and has received no information regarding her funds since March 6, 1981. Respondent has abandoned his law practice without notifying his clients, absconded with his client’s money and cannot be located.
As a result of this conduct, the referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating the following: Disciplinary Rules 9-102(A) (all funds of clients paid to a lawyer shall be deposited in one or more identifiable banks maintained in the state in which the law office is situated and no money belonging to the lawyer or law firm shall be deposited therein); 9-102(B)(1) (a lawyer shall promptly notify a client of the receipt of his funds, securities, or other property); 9-102(B)(2) (a lawyer shall identify and label securities and property of a client promptly upon receipt and place them in a place of safekeeping as soon as practicable); 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds and securities of client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his client regarding them); 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay or deliver to the client the funds and securities in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive); and Integration Rule 11.02(4) (money entrusted to an attorney for a specific purpose is held in trust and must be applied only to that purpose).
Respondent failed to respond to the request for admissions submitted by The Florida Bar; therefore, the matters therein were deemed admitted in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370. The referee recommends that respondent be disbarred from The Florida Bar and pay all costs of this action.
We approve the referee’s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, respondent’s name is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of Florida effective this date. Judgment for costs in the amount of $300 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, c.j., overton, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Ret.), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Shanzer, 572 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 1991)…430 (Fla.1990); The Fla. Bar v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Gillis, 527 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Newhouse, 520 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Bookman, 502 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1987); The Fla. Bar v. Knowles, 500 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Rodriguez, 489 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Ross, 417 So. 2d 985 (Fla.1982). In the case before us, we likewise fail to find that the mitigating evidence subm…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Graham, 605 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1992)…430 (Fla.1990); The Fla. Bar v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Gillis, 527 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Newhouse, 520 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Bookman, 502 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1987); The Fla. Bar v. Knowles, 500 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Rodriguez, 489 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Ross, 417 So. 2d 985 (Fla.1982). We find that the mitigating factors in the instant ease do not outweigh the presu…