THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOSEPH H. WEIL, 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 attorney Joseph H. Weil for neglecting a client's property damage claim and allowing the statute of limitations to expire. The Court approved a consent judgment recommending a public reprimand, restitution, and costs.
The Court found Weil guilty of violating four Disciplinary Rules (6-101(a)(3), 7-101(a)(1), 7-101(a)(2), and 7-101(a)(3)) and imposed discipline consisting of a public reprimand, taxation of costs, and judgment for $516.17.
[1] A lawyer violates disciplinary rules by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to them.
[2] A lawyer violates disciplinary rules by intentionally failing to seek a client's lawful objectives.
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“That the Respondent did not pursue their claim and allowed the statute of limitations to run.”
Statement of the primary factual basis for the disciplinary proceeding—Weil's neglect of the Luteckis' property damage claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeil was retained in 1982 to represent Mr. and Mrs. Lutecki in a property damage claim against their condominium. Weil failed to pursue the claim and …
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 Neglect Of Legal Matter cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is a Florida Bar disciplinary proceeding and is before the Court for consideration of the referee’s report. In response to the Bar’s complaint, attorney Joseph H. Weil submitted a consent judgment to which the Bar gave its approval.
Based on the consent judgment, the referee made findings and recommendations as follows:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT: In this consent judgment, Respondent admits certain factual matters which I hereby accept and adopt as the findings of fact in this cause, to wit:
(a) That the Respondent was retained to represent Mr. and Mrs. Lutecki in 1982 to handle a claim for property damage to their condominium.
(b) That the Respondent did not pursue their claim and allowed the statute of limitations to run.
(c) That the Respondent received a public reprimand in 1979.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO GUILT: In his Consent Judgment, Respondent admits that he engaged in unethical conduct. Based upon Respondent’s admissions, I recommend that Respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 6-101(a)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him), Disciplinary Rule 7-101(a)(l) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the disciplinary rules), Disciplinary Rule 7-101(a)(2) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services) and Disciplinary Rule 7-101(a)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
IV. MITIGATING FACTORS: In recommending discipline, I considered the following facts offered by Respondent in mitigation:
(a) That Respondent has made complete restitution to the Luteckis for the property damage in their condominium in the sum of $12,500.00.
(b) That Respondent has been a civil servant for many years. He is currently the City Attorney for Sweetwater and has served other municipalities over the years. (c) That Respondent has expressed deep regret for his actions.
V. RECOMMENDATION AS TO DISCIPLINARY MEASURES TO BE APPLIED:
a) a Public Reprimand to be administered by the Board of Governors.
b) Taxation of costs of this disciplinary proceeding assessed against Respondent, with execution to issue with interest at a rate of 12% to accrue on all costs not paid within thirty (30) days of entry of the Supreme Court’s final order, unless the time for payment is extended by the Board of Governors.
No challenge is made to the referee’s report. We therefore approve it and adopt the recommended discipline. Respondent Joseph H. Weil is to be reprimanded by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against Joseph H. Weil in the amount of $516.17, 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. Weil, 575 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1991)…s Respondent’s lack of regard for professional regulations as well as a willful indifference to the disciplinary system. 4. That Respondent has a history of prior disciplinary action consisting of two (2) public reprimands [The Florida Bar v. Weil, 511 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987); The Florida Bar v. Weil, 373 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1979) ] involving neglect of legal matters. Weil filed a motion to remand to the referee to allow him to present mitigating evidence which was denied by this Court and filed the instant petit…