THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
DANIEL O. PALMER, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1987-03-26
No. 69115
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
504 So. 2d 752 Florida Supreme Court (1987) Caution
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court suspended attorney Daniel O. Palmer from practicing law for eight months for engaging in a pattern of deception and neglect toward a personal injury client, including failing to file her lawsuit before the statute of limitations expired.


Holding

Palmer violated various provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for eight months, required to pass an ethics examination before resuming practice, and ordered to pay costs of $992.71.


Headnotes

[1] An attorney violates professional responsibility by failing to communicate with a client for an extended period.

[2] An attorney engages in misconduct by making false representations to a client regarding the status of their legal case.

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

Key Quotes

“Palmer did not contact Mrs. Goethe for six months. He then falsely told her the case had been delayed because of a change in opposing counsel. He agreed to send her copies of court documents but failed to do so. When Mrs. Goethe expressed concern over the running of the statute of limitations, he assured her that he had already filed suit when, in fact, he had not done so.”

Establishes the pattern of deception and neglect that formed the basis for disciplinary action

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Palmer was retained by Kathryn Goethe on a contingent fee basis to represent her in a personal injury action. Over a six-month period, Palmer did not …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This bar disciplinary proceeding is before us upon the complaint of The Florida Bar and the uncontested report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. ' Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The referee found that Kathryn Goethe retained Palmer to represent her as plaintiff on a contingent fee basis in a personal injury action. Thereafter, Palmer did not contact Mrs. Goethe for six months. He then falsely told her the case had been delayed because of a change in opposing counsel. He agreed to send her copies of court documents but failed to do so. When Mrs. Goethe expressed concern over the running of the statute of limitations, he assured her that he had already filed suit when, in fact, he had not done so. Later he lied to her concerning the securing of court dates. Finally, he falsely told her that the case had been settled out of court and that the settlement check was in the mail. Mrs. Goethe later learned that her suit had never been filed, that no settlement had ever been negotiated, and that her cause of action had been foreclosed by the running of the statute of limitations. The referee found Palmer guilty of violating various provisions of the former Code of Professional Responsibility and made the following recommendations concerning punishment:

IV. A. I recommend that Respondent be found guilty of misconduct justifying disciplinary measure, and that he be disciplined by:
1. Suspension from the practice of law for a period of eight (8) months, and that he be required to demonstrate with other appropriate attributes, his rehabilitation, by satisfactorily passing the written examination relating to ethics administered by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners.

2. I would recommend the payment of cost.

V. Mitigating Factors

Prior to recommending discipline pursuant to Article XI, Rule 11.06(9)(a)(4), I considered the following:

A. There has not been any prior disciplinary problem involving the Respondent.

B. He borrowed $10,000.00 on his own which was paid to said Kathryn Goethe in apparent satisfaction of her claim. He is remorseful.

The Referee sympathizes with Respondent because of the illness and death of his mother during the violations, supra, but does not consider this personal plight and loss a mitigating factor. Upon consideration, we approve the report of the referee. Daniel O. Palmer is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of eight months. Before resuming the practice of law he must satisfactorily pass the written exami nation relating to ethics administered by The Florida Bar Board of Bar Examiners. Palmer is allowed thirty days from the date of this opinion to wind up his practice and attend to the protection of his present clients but shall accept no new business from the date of this opinion. Judgment for costs in the amount of $992.71 is hereby entered in favor of the bar and against Palmer, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered,

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • THE Florida BAR v. Fredericks, 731 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1999)
  • THE Florida BAR v. Lecznar, 690 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1997)
    …dingly, we will not second-guess a referee’s recommended discipline as long as that discipline has a reasonable basis in existing caselaw. In the present case, however, we find the recommended discipline to be in conflict with Florida Bar v. Palmer, 504 So. 2d 752 (Fla.1987), wherein we suspended the attorney for eight months for conduct that was similar in many ways to Lecznar’s. Based on Palmer, on the one hand, and the referee’s recommended discipline, on the other, we find a ninety-day suspension appropri…
  • THE Florida BAR v. Bazley, 597 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1992)
    …(5) was remorseful; and (6) was receiving treatment for his alcohol abuse. The Bar argues that the referee’s recommended penalty is inappropriate in view of Bazley’s prior misconduct and the discipline in a similar case, The Florida Bar v. Palmer, 504 So. 2d 752 (Fla.1987). In Palmer, we approved a referee’s order suspending a lawyer for eight months on almost identical facts. In Palmer, [t]he referee found that Kathryn Goethe retained Palmer to represent her as plaintiff on a contingency fee basis in a pe…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw