THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOHN T. CARLON, 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.
John T. Carlon, Jr., an attorney, was disciplined by The Florida Bar for engaging in overreaching conduct and dishonesty in connection with his fee arrangement regarding representation of a condominium association. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the referee's findings and imposed a public reprimand, restitution, and costs.
Yes. Carlon violated former Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility by directly billing the association in violation of the fee agreement reached at the initial meeting, constituting overreaching and dishonesty.
[1] An attorney violates disciplinary rules prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by billing a client for services when a prior agreem…
[2] An attorney who obtains a default judgment and garnishes a client's bank account in violation of a fee agreement is subject to disciplinary action.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“both Hotaling and Carlon agreed that Carlon would receive part of Hotaling's fee and that Carlon would assist Hotaling at no additional charge to the client”
Establishes the fee arrangement agreed to at the initial board meeting that Carlon later violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlon was introduced by attorney Marie Hotaling as a condominium law expert at a board meeting for the Tam-O-Shanter Condominium Association. The boa…
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 Rule 1-102(A)(4) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1326] EHRLICH, Justice.
This disciplinary proceeding is before us on a complaint by The Florida Bar and the contested report of the referee. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 15, Florida Constitution.
The facts underlying the bar’s complaint involves Carlon’s association with attorney Marie Hotaling in her representation of the Tam-O-Shanter Condominium Association.1 Hotaling took Carlon to a meeting of the newly elected association board and introduced Carlon as an expert in condominium law. Each of the three board members testified at the hearing before the referee below that they informed Carlon and Hotal-ing at this meeting that the association could only afford to pay one attorney. The board members’ uncontroverted testimony reveals that both Hotaling and Carlon agreed that Carlon would receive part of Hotaling’s fee and that Carlon would assist Hotaling at no additional charge to the client. Carlon’s testimony below was essentially that he had no recollection of the discussion concerning the fee arrangement.
The association paid the bills submitted by Hotaling. However, in direct violation of the fee agreement, Carlon began billing the association for his services. When the bills went unpaid Carlon sued the association for his fees and obtained a default judgment against them. Carlon then garnished the association’s bank account in the amount of $1,048.
The referee found that there was overreaching in this matter by Carlon and that Carlon was not entitled to the monies he obtained from the association. The referee therefore recommended that Carlon be found guilty of violating former Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). The referee recommended that Car-lon receive a public reprimand to be administered by his personal appearance before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, and that Carlon make restitution to the Tam-O-Shanter Condominium Association in the amount of $1,048.
We approve the report of the referee as it is fully supported by the evidence and we adopt his recommendations.
Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that the respondent, John T. Carlon, Jr., appear before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar to receive a public reprimand and that he make restitution to the Tam-O-Shanter Condominium Association in the amount of $1,048. Judgment for costs in the amount of $680.60 are hereby entered against respondent for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. . Hotaling's unethical conduct in this representation formed part of the basis for her recent disbarment. See The Florida Bar v. Hotaling, 485 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Carlon, 820 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2002)…d failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and that Woodburn suffered actual and substantial harm as a result of respondent’s misconduct. The referee also considered Carlon’s previous disciplinary history: In Florida Bar v. Carlon, 505 So. 2d 1325 (Fla.1987), Carlon received a public reprimand for billing and suing a home [*895] owner’s association, securing a default judgment and garnishing the association’s bank account, all in violation of a fee agreement. In Florida Bar v. Carlon, Octobe…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Hotaling, 485 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1986)