THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
BILLY D. SHANNON, 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 brought a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney based on his conditional guilty plea. The attorney admitted to violating professional conduct rules through actions related to child custody, neglecting a client's case, and mishandling client funds.
The court accepted the attorney's conditional guilty plea and approved the referee's report, imposing the recommended six-month suspension.
[1] Engaging in conduct involving fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty, and deceit, including failing to return a child contrary to a court order, violates the Code of Profes…
[2] Abandoning a law practice and neglecting a client's case without notification constitutes conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law.
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“respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar, Rule 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty and deceit), and Rule 1-102(A)(6) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law), by failing to return his 5V2 year-old daughter to his former wife and the child’s mother, contrary to a court-ordered child visitation order”
Establishes one of the primary violations found against the attorney.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe attorney failed to return his daughter to his former wife as ordered by a court. He also abandoned his law practice, neglected a client's divorce …
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 Violation Of Code Of Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before us on The Florida Bar’s complaint, the respondent’s conditional guilty plea, and the referee’s uncontested report. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The referee accepted respondent’s conditional plea and found respondent guilty of the following: (1) respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar, Rule 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty and deceit), and Rule 1-102(A)(6) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law), by failing to return his 5V2 year-old daughter to his former wife and the child’s mother, contrary to a court-ordered child visitation order; (2) respondent violated The Florida Bar’s Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 1-102(A)(6) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law), and Rule 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional services), by abandoning his law practice and neglecting a client’s divorce case without notifying the client; and (3) respondent violated The Florida Bar’s Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 1-102(A)(6) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law), and Rule 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver funds which a client is entitled to receive), by withholding a brokerage commission fee from a real estate salesman and withdrawing attorney’s fees from an escrow account without authorization. In accordance with respondent’s conditional guilty plea for consent judgment, the referee recommended a six-months’ suspension, retroactive to three months from the date of this opinion, with proof of his rehabilitation being required prior to readmission in accordance with Rule 3-5.1(e), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. We accept the plea, approve the referee’s report, and impose the recommended discipline. Judgment for costs in the amount of $740.66 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.