THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
CHARLES EDWARD BARTLETT, 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 disciplined attorney Charles E. Bartlett for professional misconduct involving client neglect and misrepresentation regarding a property encroachment matter. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's recommendation and disbarred Bartlett, considering his prior disciplinary history and his complete non-participation in the disciplinary proceedings.
The Court approved the referee's findings that Bartlett violated multiple disciplinary rules through client neglect, misrepresentation, and dishonesty, and adopted disbarment as the appropriate sanction. The Court determined that Bartlett's repeated similar misconduct and willful refusal to participate in the disciplinary process justified the severe penalty.
[1] An attorney's failure to answer a bar complaint, respond to requests for admissions, or appear for a hearing may result in matters being deemed admitted.
[2] Neglecting a legal matter, failing to seek a client's lawful objectives, and intentionally failing to carry out an employment contract constitute professional misconduct.
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“Repeated instances of similar misconduct should be treated cumulatively so that a lawyer's disciplinary history can be considered as grounds for more serious punishment than his present misconduct, considered in isolation, might seem to warrant.”
Establishes that the Court considers a lawyer's prior disciplinary history cumulatively when determining the appropriate sanction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA property owner retained Bartlett to resolve an encroachment on an easement, paying $332 in fees. Bartlett represented that the matter could be resol…
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 Fitness To Practice Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This Florida Bar disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of the report of the referee filed pursuant to Rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The referee found attorney Charles E. Bartlett guilty of professional misconduct and recommended disbarment. Neither party sought review of the referee’s report. We directed the parties to submit briefs on the suitability of the recommended disciplinary measure. Only The Florida Bar has complied with our order by filing a brief. After careful consideration of the issue, and without the benefit of any legal argument or statement on the part of respondent, we approve the referee’s findings and adopt the recommended discipline.
Respondent did not answer the Bar’s complaint or its request for admissions and did not appear for the hearing. Based on the Bar’s motion to deem matters admitted, the referee made findings of fact.
The referee found that a property owner had sought respondent’s assistance regarding an encroachment on an easement. Respondent agreed to represent the client and represented to him that the problem could be resolved quickly. Respondent received a total of $332.00 in fees and agreed to communicate with the adverse party regarding removal of the encroaching structure. Respondent indicated to the client that the matter would be resolved in this way without court action. Thereafter, respondent took no action on the matter. Respondent retained the money paid to him as a fee.
The referee found that respondent had violated the following provisions of the former Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility: Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(1) (violation of a disciplinary rule); DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law); DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter); DR 7-101(A)(l) (failure to seek the lawful objectives of the client); DR 7-101(A)(2) (intentional failure to carry out a contract of employment). In the absence of any explanatory or mitigating circumstances, this total neglect must be considered serious professional misconduct.
Respondent has been suspended from the practice of law two times in the past two and a half years. In The Florida Bar v. Bartlett, 462 So. 2d 1087 (Fla.1985), he was suspended for thirty days for neglecting to keep proper trust account records and failing to follow required trust accounting procedures. In The Florida Bar v. Bartlett, 489 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1986), respondent was suspended for fifteen months for misconduct involving neglect and misrepresentation. As was noted above, respondent in the present case did not answer the complaint, appear before the referee, or respond to this Court’s call for briefs.
Repeated instances of similar misconduct should be treated cumulatively so that a lawyer’s disciplinary history can be considered as grounds for more serious punishment than his present misconduct, considered in isolation, might seem to warrant. The Florida Bar v. Bern, 425 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1982); The Florida Bar v. Delves, 397 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1981). Moreover, a lawyer’s willful refusal to participate at all in the disciplinary process when he is accused of misconduct calls into serious question the lawyer’s fitness for the practice of law. See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Montgomery, 412 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1982).
For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the recommended disciplinary action and disbar Charles Edward Bartlett, effective immediately.
The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against respondent for $632.00, 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. Shoureas, 913 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2005)…ch party shall pay its own fees and costs in Case No. SC03-1333. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. . The only case cited by the Bar to support disbarment, Florida Bar v. Bartlett, 509 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1987), is distinguishable. There, the lawyer agreed to accept representation and accepted a fee and then took no further action in the case. The lawyer had a history of prior discipline: he had been disciplined for neglecting a client matter an…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Knowles, 572 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1991)…Bar v. Wolbert, 446 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1984). Finally, the two matters involving serious neglect and inattentiveness also warrant disbarment, especially since respondent has been disciplined previously for similar behavior. The Fla. Bar v. Bartlett, 509 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1987). Respondent has a serious history of neglecting his clients and their cases. He also has a history of charging for personal services he receives and not paying for them. And most seriously, he mishandles his trust accounts, conduct for wh…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Shoureas, 892 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2004)…sciplinary proceedings against them. See [*1005] The Florida Bar v. Setien, 530 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1988); The Florida Bar v. Ribowsky-Cruz, 529 So. 2d 1100 (Fla.1988); The Florida Bar v. Friedman, 511 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1987); The Florida Bar v. Bartlett, 509 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1987); and The Florida Bar v. Murray, 489 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1986). . See Florida Bar v. Eubanks, 752 So. 2d 540, 544 (Fla.1999); Florida Bar v. Porter, 684 So. 2d 810, 813 (Fla.1996). . See Porter, 684 So. 2d at 813. . See Florida Bar v. Temmer…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Bern, 425 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Montgomery, 412 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Delves, 397 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1981)
- THE Florida BAR v. Bartlett, 462 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1985)
- THE Florida BAR v. Bartlett, 489 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1986)