THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
H. LEE BAUMAN, 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 court approved the referee's findings and recommendations regarding attorney discipline.
Respondent attorney was charged with unethical conduct for discussing importing cocaine and cannabis, though he later renounced participation and prev…
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 Florida Bar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and the uncontested report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The Florida Bar charged respondent with engaging in unethical conduct, specifically, violation of article XI, Rule 11.02(3)(a), of the Integration Rule of the Florida Bar (commission of an act contrary to honesty, justice, and good morals), and Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law).
Respondent entered into a stipulation for a consent judgment based on the following admitted facts: In December, 1979, and January, 1980, respondent met with others on numerous occasions to discuss the feasibility of importing cocaine and cannabis. However, on January 19, 1980, respondent voluntarily renounced his participation in the scheme and prevented its commission by persuading all the others not to go forward with the plan.
Respondent agreed to and the referee approved the following discipline: A six-months’ suspension beginning May 1, 1987, and a requirement that he take and pass the professional responsibility portion of The Florida Bar examination and demonstrate proof of rehabilitation in accordance with the rule prior to reinstatement. In approving the consent judgment, the Bar and the referee considered a number of mitigating factors, including respondent’s strong sense of repentance and otherwise ethical practice of law. After receiving a supplemental brief on the appropriateness of the discipline, we approve the referee’s findings and recommendations.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $633.00 is hereby entered against respondent, 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. Hiram Lee Bauman, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1990)…e unauthorized practice of law while suspended.* This Court suspended respondent for six months effective May 1, 1987, and ordered him to take and pass the professional responsibility exam as a condition of reinstatement. The Florida Bar v. Bauman, 505 So. 2d 1326 (Fla.1987). While suspended, the respondent engaged in at least five distinct acts of practicing law. On one of these occasions he was held in contempt by a circuit judge for holding himself out as an attorney. Yet subsequent to the contempt citatio…