THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
EUGENE T. GILLIS, 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 affirmed the referee's finding that attorney Eugene T. Gillis misappropriated $350 in client settlement funds and disbarred him effective immediately. The decision involved clear violations of multiple disciplinary rules governing the handling of client trust funds and the attorney's complete failure to respond to Bar proceedings.
The Court found that Gillis violated multiple disciplinary rules by misappropriating $350 in client funds and disbarred him effective immediately, requiring restitution of $350 plus interest from June 28, 1984, with no readmission consideration unless restitution is made.
[1] A lawyer's failure to promptly pay or deliver funds that a client is entitled to receive constitutes professional misconduct.
[2] Misappropriation of client funds by a lawyer is a violation of disciplinary rules and grounds for disbarment.
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“The referee found that respondent misappropriated his client's money in the amount of $350.00.”
Establishes the core disciplinary violation of misappropriation of client funds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGillis represented a client in a personal injury action and negotiated a settlement of $500. The client agreed to allow Gillis to retain $150 as his f…
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 Illegal Conduct Involving Moral Turpitude cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of the uncontested referee’s report pursuant to Rule 3-7.-6(c)(6) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The referee found that respondent represented a client in an action to recover for personal injuries. Respondent effected a settlement in which the client agreed to accept $500.00 in exchange for a full and final release. Respondent received the settlement funds. The client had agreed to allow respondent to retain $150.00 from the settlement proceeds as his fee. The settlement and payment of the settlement amount occurred in June 1984. Thereafter, the client made repeated demands on respondent for the payment of the $350.00 to which the client was entitled. Respondent failed to remit the funds and failed to respond to the client’s letters. The client filed a grievance with The Florida Bar in December 1986.
The respondent failed to respond to the Bar’s inquiries, did not attend the grievance committee hearing, failed to respond to the formal complaint, and did not attend the hearing before the referee.
The referee found that respondent misappropriated his client’s money in the amount of $350.00. The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of the charged disciplinary violations, set forth as follows: The Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rules 11.02(2) (violation of a disciplinary rule is a cause for discipline); 11.02(3)(a) (an act contrary to honesty, justice, or good morals); 11.-02(3)(b) (misconduct constituting a criminal offense); and 11.02(4) (use of entrusted funds for an unauthorized purpose); The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not violate a disciplinary rule); 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); 9-102(A) (failure to keep client funds separate and identifiable); 9-102(B)(3) (failure to maintain complete records of client funds and render appropriate accounts); and 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly pay or deliver funds which a client is entitled to receive).
The referee recommends that respondent be disbarred and that he be required to pay restitution to his former client in this matter in the amount of $350.00 plus interest from June 28, 1984. We approve the referee’s report. Eugene T. Gillis is hereby disbarred, effective immediately. No application for his readmission to The Florida Bar will be considered unless it be shown that he has made restitution as recommended by the referee.
The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the respondent. Judgment for costs in the amount of $505.16 is hereby entered against Eugene T. Gillis, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Shanzer, 572 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 1991)…ion of funds notwithstanding the mitigating evidence presented. See The Fla. Bar v. Shuminer, 567 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1990); The Fla. Bar v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Gillis, 527 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Newhouse, 520 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Bookman, 502 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1987); The Fla. Bar v. Knowles, 500 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Rodriguez, 489 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Ross, 417 S…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Graham, 605 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1992)…ion of funds notwithstanding the mitigating evidence presented. See The Fla. Bar v. Shuminer, 567 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1990); The Fla. Bar v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Gillis, 527 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Newhouse, 520 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Bookman, 502 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1987); The Fla. Bar v. Knowles, 500 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Rodriguez, 489 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Ross, 417 S…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Stark, 616 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1993)…uct. [*44] See The Fla. Bar v. Simring, 612 So. 2d 561 (Fla.1993); The Fla. Bar v. Graham, 605 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1992); The Fla. Bar v. McClure, 575 So. 2d 176 (Fla.1991); The Fla. Bar v. Shanzer, 572 So. 2d 1382 (Fla.1991); and The Fla. Bar v. Gillis, 527 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1988). The majority correctly states the rule governing discipline for unethical behavior, majority opinion at 43, but apparently ignores the standard in reaching its inexplicable result. In fact, two of the factors relied on by the majority t…