THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
HAROLD W. LONG, JR., 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 Court disbarred the respondent attorney, Harold W. Long, Jr., based on his default and the referee's findings of numerous professional misconduct violations.
[1] A lawyer's default in failing to respond to disciplinary complaints and appear at a hearing, despite proper notice, can form the basis for findings of guilt on multiple c…
[2] Failure to keep client funds in a separate trust account, failure to maintain complete records of client funds, neglect of legal matters, and handling legal matters witho…
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 intelligenceThe Florida Bar filed complaints against attorney Harold W. Long, Jr., alleging multiple counts of professional misconduct. The referee found Long gui…
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 Abandonment Of Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary proceedings are before the Court upon the complaints of The Florida Bar against Harold W. Long, Jr., and the uncontested report of the referee.
The referee found respondent guilty on all counts of both multi-count complaints. The numerous counts of professional misconduct included one or more instances of each of the following: failure to keep client funds in a separate trust account, failure to maintain complete records of client funds, neglect of legal matters, handling legal matters without adequate preparation, failure to carry out contracts of employment, damaging or prejudicing the interests of clients, failure to deliver client property promptly, conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law, and conduct contrary to honesty. The referee’s findings of guilt were based on respondent’s default in failing to respond to the Bar’s complaints and failure to appear at the hearing despite proper and adequate notice.
Respondent was previously reprimanded and placed on probation for similar violations. The Florida Bar v. Long, 486 So. 2d 591 (Fla.1986). The referee found that respondent has failed to comply with the conditions of probation imposed upon him in that proceeding; i.e., monthly reports on progress against alcohol abuse, reimbursement to the Clients’ Security Fund, and payment of costs. In view of respondent’s failure to .respond or appear in the proceedings and his nonpayment of Florida Bar membership dues, the referee concluded that respondent has abandoned his practice and recommended that he be disbarred.
Respondent does not seek review of the referee’s findings and recommendations. Under these circumstances, we approve the referee’s report. Harold W. Long, Jr., is hereby disbarred, effective immediately.
The cost of these proceedings in the amount of $1,532.28 is assessed against the respondent. Judgment for costs is entered against Harold W. Long, Jr., in the amount of $1,532.28, 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
-
Flarity v. State, 527 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…082, 775.083, and 775.084. [emphasis added] . See note 3 to the dissent in Gotthardt v. State, 475 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and the separate opinion in the district court version of Bing v. State, 492 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), approved, 514 So. 2d 1101 (Fla.1987). . State v. Carpenter, 417 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1982) held, in effect, that aggravated battery and battery on a law enforcement officer were each separate and distinct substantive offenses. Contrary to the supreme court's ruling in State v. C…
-
Foster v. State, 596 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…y the core or nuclear elements of each compared offense, adopted to a progressive degree in Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987), and advocated in the separate opinions in Bing v. State, 492 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), decision approved, 514 So. 2d 1101 (Fla.1987); Collins v. State, 489 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Thompson [*1109] v. State, 487 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986); and Gotthardt v. State, 475 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). See also later opin…
-
Paul v. State, 548 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…o find error, however, in the dual convictions and sentences. One cannot be convicted and sentenced for both robbery and grand theft for the taking of the same property valued at over $100. Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987); State v. Bing, 514 So. 2d 1101 (Fla.1987). The offense involved occurred prior to the passage of section 775.-021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). See State v. Smith, 547 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction for armed robbery and remand for resentenc…
Previewing 3 of 6 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. Long, 486 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1986)