THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
WALTER B. DUNAGAN, 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 referee's findings of fact and recommended disciplinary measures are adopted because neither party sought review.
Respondent Walter B. Dunagan, an attorney, entered into a business transaction with his client without advising the client to obtain independent legal…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of a referee’s report filed pursuant to Rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Upon trial of the charges made in a complaint filed by The Florida Bar, the referee found that respondent Walter B. Dunagan had entered into a business transaction with his client without advising the client to obtain independent legal counsel. The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 5-104(A) of the former Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. D.R. 5-104(A) provides: “A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein and if the client expects the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment therein for the protection of the client, unless the client has consented after full disclosure.” The referee recommended a public reprimand and probation for six months.
Neither party seeks review of the referee’s report. Therefore the referee’s findings of fact are deemed conclusive and the recommended disciplinary measures are adopted. Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 3-7.6(c)(6).
Accordingly, by the publication of this order we hereby reprimand attorney Walter B. Dunagan and place him on probation for six months.
The Florida Bar’s costs in this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against Walter B. Du-nagan in the amount of $1572.89, 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. Dunagan, 731 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1999)…, 565 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.1990)(imposing sixty-day suspension for charging clients usurious rate of interest on outstanding fee balance and representing clients where his personal interests conflicted with those of the clients); Florida Bar v. Dunagan, 509 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1987)(publiely reprimanding Dunagan for entering into business transaction with a client wherein they had conflicting interests without advising the client to obtain independent legal counsel).4 While this misconduct is not close enough in time…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Dunagan, 565 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1990)…tt, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution. . Case No. 74,398. . Case No. 73,629. . We note that respondent had received a public reprimand in The Honda Bar v. Dunagan, 509 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1987), but we do not consider it to be prior misconduct in aggravation of punishment pursuant to The Florida Bar v. Carter, 429 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla.1983).…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Kramer, 593 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1992)…presented, we defer to the referee’s judgment as to a reprimand. Nevertheless, as discussed above, we cannot agree that the reprimand should be private. See The Fla. [*1042] Bar v. Dougherty, 541 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Dunagan, 509 So. 2d 291, 292 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, respondent, Robert E. Kramer, is hereby publicly reprimanded, and such discipline shall be effectuated by the publishing of this opinion in the Southern Reporter. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,616.52 is entere…