THE FLORIDA BAR. IN RE LOUIS VERNELL, JR.
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 held that the referee's recommendation for reinstatement should be approved, as the Bar failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion or grounds for denying reinstatement.
[1] A referee has sound discretion to grant or deny a motion for continuance.
[2] Denial of a motion for continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion only when there is a clear showing of prejudice.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 petitioned to review a referee's recommendation for reinstatement of an attorney. The Bar argued the referee abused discretion by deny…
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 Reinstatement To The Bar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before us on petition of The Florida Bar to review a referee’s recommendation of reinstatement into the Bar. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution, and approve the referee’s recommendation.
The Bar raises two arguments for disapproving the recommendation. First, the Bar argues that it was abuse of the referee’s discretion to deny the Bar’s motion for a continuance. It is within the referee’s sound discretion to decide whether to grant a motion for continuance. The Florida Bar v. Lipman, 497 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1986). Besides the untimeliness of the motion, the referee could reasonably have denied the motion on the ground that a delay was unnecessary. Regardless, there is no indication whatsoever that the denial of the motion constituted abuse of discretion and, accordingly, it will be upheld.
Second, the Bar argues that Vernell has failed to demonstrate the requisite elements for reinstatement. However, the record reveals a basis for the referee’s conclusion that Vernell has rehabilitated himself and that he is remorseful. The Bar argues that Vernell has demonstrated malice and ill feelings towards those involved in bringing about the disciplinary proceedings. The Bar rests this allegation on statements made by Vernell at the reinstatement hearing that he believed that this Court’s decision to suspend him for 91 days was legally incorrect. Disagreement with a legal holding, in and of itself, is not evidence of malice. It is not uncommon that reasonable people disagree as to how a court disposes of a case without evidencing malice or ill-will towards the court. Frequently such disagreement arises within the court itself. We do not agree with the Bar that disagreement with this Court’s discipline ruling constitutes grounds for denying the petition for reinstatement.
Accordingly, Louis Vernell, Jr. is hereby reinstated into The Florida Bar, effective this date.
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. Roth, 693 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1997)…al of his motion to dismiss. As to Roth’s cross-appeal, we conclude that the referee did not err in denying [*972] Roth’s motion to dismiss. A referee has the discretion to decide whether to grant or deny motions. See, e.g., Florida Bar re Vernell, 520 So. 2d 564 (Fla.1988) (holding that it was within the referee’s sound discretion to grant a motion for continuance). In this case, the Bar had put on the testimony of Steve Hutton and Lynne Roth to support the allegations in both counts. In addition, numerous…
-
THE Fla. BAR re Walter Benton Dunagan, 775 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2000)…me Court of Florida was incorrect in finding his representation in The Florida Bar v. Dunagan, 731 So. 2d 1237 (Fla.1999) ... constituted an impermissible conflict of interest.” 1 This conclusion is contrary to our holding in Florida Bar re Vernell, 520 So. 2d 564 (Fla.1988). In Vemell, the Bar opposed the referee’s recommendation of [*962] reinstatement on the basis that Vernell demonstrated malice and ill feelings toward those involved in bringing about the disciplinary proceedings. The Bar based this alleg…
-
THE Fla. BAR In re Keith A. Seldin, 577 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1991)…n the future; (6) in cases involving misappropriation of funds, restitution is important. Id. at 549. We also stated that the nature of the offense that resulted in the disciplinary action is to be considered. Id. In The Florida Bar In re Vernell, 520 So. 2d 564 (Fla.1988), this Court approved a petition for reinstatement on grounds there was evidence in the record that Vernell was remorseful. The bar claimed that Vernell was not remorseful based on his statement that he believed the decision to suspend him…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Lipman, 497 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1986)