THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOHN MONTGOMERY GREENE, 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 upheld disciplinary sanctions against attorney John Montgomery Greene for continued professional misconduct in failing to timely correct deed errors and neglecting a client's legal matter over a seven-year period, despite prior discipline and probation conditions.
Greene violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, and rule 4-1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court approved the referee's recommendation of a public reprimand and two-year probation with conditions including reimbursement of client's costs for independent counsel, payment of all fees and costs, and threat of twelve-month suspension for failure to pay.
[1] A lawyer's failure to correct errors in legal descriptions in deeds, despite repeated promises and prior disciplinary action, constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrus…
[2] A lawyer's continued failure to diligently and promptly represent a client after a prior disciplinary suspension for similar misconduct warrants further disciplinary acti…
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“In The Florida Bar v. Greene, 463 So.2d 213 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded the respondent for his negligence and placed him on a one-year period of probation during which time he was to correct the deeds.”
Establishes the prior disciplinary action and specific probation conditions that Greene subsequently violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1980, Greene was retained to handle closings on property sales for Eileen Vandenberg. He made errors in the legal descriptions in the deeds, which …
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 Reimbursement Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of the report of a referee. Neither party seeks review of the report.
The referee’s report contains findings of fact expressed as follows:
1. In 1980 the respondent was retained by Eileen Vandenberg to handle the closings on the sale of some lots located in Florida.
2. The respondent made an error in the legal description in the deeds. Mrs. Vandenberg did not become aware of the error until January, 1982. She notified the respondent and he promised to make the necessary corrections.
3. The respondent failed to do so and Mrs. Vandenberg filed a complaint with The Florida Bar in November, 1982.
4. In The Florida Bar v. Greene, 463 So. 2d 213 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded the respondent for his negligence and placed him on a one-year period of probation during which time he was to correct the deeds. Failure to do so within thirty days would result in his immediate suspension for ninety days.
5. On April 10, 1986, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for ninety days after he failed to observe the conditions of his probation which included correcting the deeds within thirty days. See The Florida Bar v. Greene, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.1986).
6. By letter dated February 13, 1987, Mrs. Vandenberg advised the Bar that several of the deeds had still not been corrected.
7. Respondent asserted he assumed his associate had made the necessary corrections. However, he did not check to see if this had been accomplished properly and in a timely manner. 8. The corrected deeds finally were mailed to Mrs. Vandenberg’s counsel in or about October 1987. Mrs. Vanden-berg signed the deeds which were returned to the respondent in February. However, the exact status of the lots is still unclear as several were purchased by nonresidents.
The referee recommended finding the respondent guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), 6- 101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him), and 7-101(A)(l) (failing to seek lawful objectives of client) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility and, for continuing misconduct after December 31, 1986, rule 4-1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
On the matter of discipline, the referee recommended as follows:
I recommend that the respondent receive a public reprimand and be placed on probation for a period of two years. As a condition of the respondent’s probation, within thirty days of billing, he shall reimburse Mrs. Vandenberg for her costs of retaining independent counsel to clear up the situation. Respondent shall cooperate fully with independent counsel. The referee further urges Mrs. Vanden-berg to retain independent counsel as soon as possible. Respondent shall also bear all fees and costs in this matter. A failure to pay fees and costs of the independent counsel and these proceedings within one month of billing shall result in a twelve-month period of suspension with proof of rehabilitation required.
We approve the referee’s findings and recommendations. We hereby reprimand John Montgomery Greene for professional misconduct. He shall be on probation for two years under the conditions set forth in the referee’s report.
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against John Montgomery Greene for costs in the amount of $951.08, 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. Greene, 589 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1991)…ommending that Greene pay a $2,500 fine. We agree with the Bar that further suspension of Greene would be fruitless. Greene has a long history of disciplinary violations. See The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1990); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 529 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 515 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1987); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 463 So. 2d 213 (Fla.1985); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 235 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1970). He has completely disregarded les…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 463 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1985)