THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JEFFREY LEVKOFF, 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 Jeffrey Levkoff for practicing law while under suspension from the Florida Bar for nonpayment of dues. The Court approved the referee's recommended ninety-day suspension but modified the implementation to ensure the suspension for the separate violation of practicing while suspended would be meaningful and run consecutively rather than concurrently with his suspension for nonpayment of dues.
The Court approved the ninety-day suspension but rejected the concurrent-running recommendation. Instead, the Court ordered that upon Levkoff's completion of reinstatement requirements and actual reinstatement to active membership, he would be required to serve a ninety-day suspension commencing at the time of reinstatement. This ensures the suspension for the separate violation of practicing while suspended has meaningful effect.
[1] The Supreme Court of Florida has jurisdiction over bar disciplinary proceedings.
[2] Practicing law while under suspension for nonpayment of dues constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 has committed two separate and distinct violations of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar. The second violation occurred while he was already under suspension. This second act must be dealt with separately in order to give full force and effect to the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar.”
Establishes the Court's reasoning that concurrent suspensions would be ineffective and that separate violations require separate consequences to maintain disciplinary integrity.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLevkoff was suspended from The Florida Bar for nonpayment of dues. While under this suspension, he engaged in the practice of law in Florida over a se…
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 Practicing Law While Suspended cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is a disciplinary proceeding brought by The Florida Bar against suspended attorney Jeffrey Levkoff. The complaint was filed pursuant to article XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar.1 This Court has jurisdiction of bar disciplinary proceedings. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The complaint of The Florida Bar alleged that respondent, while under suspension from regular membership in The Florida Bar for nonpayment of dues, engaged in the practicó of law in Florida, performing numerous functions as an attorney over a seven-month period in 1984. The respondent submitted a guilty plea for a consent judgment, admitting the alleged misconduct and agreeing with the Bar to a ninety-day suspension. The referee accepted the plea and found respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 3-101(B).2
We approve the referee’s report, with the following exception. Although the referee recommends that respondent’s ninety-day suspension run concurrently with his suspension for nonpayment of dues, this Court is of the opinion that such a suspension has no real meaning. Respondent has committed two separate and distinct violations of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar. The second violation occurred while he was already under suspension. This second act must be dealt with separately in order to give full force and effect to the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar. At such time as the respondent shall have completed all the applicable requirements for reinstatement to active membership in The Florida Bar, see rule 1-3.7, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and if reinstated he will be required to submit to a ninety-day suspension, to commence at the time of reinstatement.
The costs of this proceeding are assessed and judgment therefor entered against respondent in the amount of $578.00, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . On January 1, 1987, the Integration Rule was superseded by this Court’s adoption of the new Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The Florida Bar, re: Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 494 So. 2d 977 (Fla.1986).
. Disciplinary Rule 3-101(B) provides: “A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction." The Code of Professional Responsibility was superseded by the rules Regulating The Florida Bar on January 1, 1987. Rule of Professional Conduct 4-5.5(a) is the corresponding provision in the new rules.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Wasserman, 654 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1995)…e of law while under suspension. See The Fla. Bar v. Weil, 575 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1991) (ordering six-month suspension for lawyer with prior disciplinary record6 who practiced law while under suspension for nonpayment of dues); The Fla. Bar v. Levkoff, 511 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1987) (ordering ninety-day suspension for practicing law while under suspension for nonpayment of dues). In addition, this Court has ordered a sixty-day suspension for a lawyer who failed to disclose essential matters in business transactions w…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Weil, 575 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1991)…gly, Joseph H. Weil is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months to commence upon his reinstatement to active membership in The Florida Bar pursuant to rule 1-3.7, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. See The Florida Bar v. Levkoff, 511 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1987) (suspension resulting from practicing law while suspended for nonpayment of dues should commence at time of reinstatement.) Judgment for costs in the amount of $867.60 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issu…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Roberts, 789 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2001)…revious misconduct, however, is not of a similar nature to the misconduct in the present case. The Bar cites to two cases which resemble the facts of the present case: Florida Bar v. Wasserman, 654 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1995), and Florida Bar v. Levkoff, 511 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1987). In both of these cases, the attorneys received suspensions of less than ninety-one days. In Wasserman, the attorney received a sixty-day suspension for continuing to practice law after receiving notice that he had been suspended for fail…
Authorities Cited
- The Fla. Bar re Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar, 494 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1986)