THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JACK P. ATTIAS, 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 Supreme Court approved a consent judgment imposing a public reprimand on an attorney who pleaded guilty to criminal contempt for violating a court order prohibiting witness contact.
An attorney who commits criminal contempt by violating a court order prohibiting improper witness contact may be disciplined by public reprimand.
[1] Criminal contempt conviction for violating a court order prohibiting witness contact constitutes grounds for attorney discipline under rules prohibiting criminal miscondu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent attorney was adjudicated guilty of criminal contempt in United States District Court for allowing improper contact with a potential witness…
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 Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before the Court for consideration of the respondent attorney’s unconditional guilty plea for a consent judgment. The Florida Bar joins the respondent in seeking approval of the consent judgment.
In his plea respondent states that he was adjudicated guilty of criminal contempt in a United States District Court for violating a court order. The offense, respondent states, is a misdemeanor under the United States criminal code. The contempt charge was predicated on respondent’s conduct in allowing “improper contact with a potential witness in an impending criminal matter, when such contact had been prohibited by court order.”
Based on the foregoing admissions of fact, respondent acknowledges his violation of the former Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, article XI, rule 11.02(3)(b) (misconduct constituting a criminal offense) and the former Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 7-106(A) (disregarding or allowing a client to disregard a rule or ruling of a tribunal).
The consent judgment agreed to by The Florida Bar provides for respondent to receive a public reprimand by personal appearance before the Board of Governors. We accept the guilty plea, approve tho consent judgment, and order that respondent receive a public reprimand by appearance before the Board of Governors,
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. Weisser, 721 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1998)…eedings, and encouraging witnesses to he. In Florida Bar v. Davis, 657 So. 2d 1135, 1137 (Fla.1995), this Court disbarred a judge for ten years where the judge accepted bribes and committed other acts of misconduct. Finally, in Florida Bar v. Dykes, 513 So. 2d 1055, 1056 (Fla.1987), this Court disbarred an attorney without leave to apply for readmission for ten years where the attorney (1) failed to notify a client of his six-month suspension; (2) acted as personal representative of an estate after being suspe…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Taylor, 648 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1995)…ating The Florida Bar 4-8.4 (obstruction of justice), who are held in criminal contempt of court or who have clearly committed a dishonest or fraudulent act. See, e.g., The Fla. Bar v. Rood, 633 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1994); Langston; The Fla. Bar v. Attias, 513 So. 2d 1055 (Fla.1987); The Fla. Bar v. Gifford, 478 So. 2d 46 (Fla.1985). What distinguishes these cases from the instant case, however, is that the contempt at issue in all but Lang-ston was criminal contempt, while the contempt at issue in the present case i…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Ellis S. Simring, 612 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1993)…nd attempting to assist his client in requesting two continuances.”). However, the Court has not been reluctant to disbar a lawyer who is found guilty of violating its orders. The Fla. Bar v. Bauman, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla.1990); The Fla. Bar v. Dykes, 513 So. 2d 1055 (Fla.1987). As this Court stated in Bauman: We can think of no person less likely to be rehabilitated than someone like respondent, who wilfully, deliberately, and continuously, refuses to abide by an order of this Court. Bauman, 558 So. 2d at 994…