THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ERIC R. JONES, 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 charges against attorney Eric R. Jones for multiple violations of professional conduct rules, including neglect of a client's legal matter, failure to communicate, and lack of diligence. The Court suspended Jones from practice for 91 days and indefinitely thereafter until rehabilitation is proven and restitution of $585.50 is paid to the client.
The Court found Jones guilty of all six specified violations of professional conduct rules and approved the referee's recommended discipline of suspension from practice for 91 days, with indefinite suspension thereafter until rehabilitation is proven and restitution of $585.50 plus costs of $614.11 are paid to the client.
[1] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to them.
[2] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by intentionally failing to seek a client's lawful objective through reasonably available means.
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 specifically notes respondent's total lack of cooperation with The Florida Bar during these proceedings. Respondent failed to appear either in person or by counsel at his grievance committee hearing on January 25, 1988, despite the fact that he had personal knowledge as to when the hearing was scheduled.”
Establishes Jones's pattern of non-cooperation with disciplinary proceedings, which the Court found significant in determining appropriate discipline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was retained by a client for legal representation but failed to pursue the client's legal objectives, neglected the matter, and failed to keep t…
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 Fitness To Practice Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The respondent, Eric R. Jones, petitions this Court to review the referee’s report in the instant disciplinary proceeding. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const. We approve the referee’s recommendations as to both guilt and discipline.
The respondent was charged in a petition filed by The Florida Bar with the following violations of the Disciplinary Rules of The Florida Bar’s Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of Professional Conduct:
(a) 1-102(A)(6) for any other conduct that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law; (b) 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him;
(c) 7-101(A)(l) for intentionally failing to seek the lawful objective of his client through reasonably available means;
(d) 7-101(A)(2) for intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services;
(e) 4-1.3 for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client;
(f) 4-1.4(a) for failing to keep his client reasonably informed as to the status of a matter and promptly complying with her reasonable requests for information.
We agree with the referee’s findings of guilt as to each of the specified violations.
Although respondent does not have any prior disciplinary record, it is the referee’s recommendation that respondent be suspended for a period of ninety-one days and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation and for an indefinite period until he shall pay the costs of this proceeding and make restitution to his client in the amount of $585.50, as provided in rule 3-5.1(e) of the Rules of Discipline.
The referee specifically notes respondent’s total lack of cooperation with The Florida Bar during these proceedings. Respondent failed to appear either in person or by counsel at his grievance committee hearing on January 25, 1988, despite the fact that he had personal knowledge as to when the hearing was scheduled. He further failed to appear either in person or by counsel at his final hearing before the referee on August 2, 1988, despite having had notice by certified mail. The referee felt this was the same callous disregard for the proceedings of The Florida Bar as he had shown toward his client’s legal matter in this case.
We also note that on three separate occasions respondent was notified by this Court that his brief was overdue, but to this date no brief has been filed on behalf of respondent.
We believe that the referee’s recommended discipline is appropriate in this case, and we therefore suspend Eric R. Jones from the practice of law for a period of ninety-one days and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation and for an indefinite period until he shall pay the costs of this proceeding and make restitution to his client in the amount of $585.50. This suspension shall be effective May 30, 1989, thereby giving respondent thirty days to take the necessary steps to protect his clients. Respondent shall accept no new business after the date of this opinion. Judgment for costs in the amount of $614.11 is entered against the respondent, 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. Summers, 728 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1999)…inety-one-day suspension ordered for attorney’s failure to provide competent representation to a client, failing to respond in writing to the Bar’s inquiry, and ratifying the misconduct of a nonlawyer associated with a lawyer); Florida Bar v. Jones, 543 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1989)(ninety-one-day suspension imposed for attorney’s neglect of client’s legal matters and for failure to cooperate with the Bar during disciplinary proceedings). These cases are more indicative of the punishment appropriate for the miscondu…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Jones, 571 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1990)…Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The referee made the following findings: 1. I specifically find that the respondent did not make a good faith effort to comply with the suspension order of the Supreme Court of Florida in The Florida Bar v. Eric R. Jones, 543 So. 2d 751 (Fla.1989). Furthermore, the respondent knowingly made untrue representations to the court with respect to his efforts to comply. 2. The Florida Bar filed a Petition for Order to Show Cause on July 14, 1989. The Bar alleged that the respondent, who…
-
Florida BAR v. Arango, 720 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1998)…cited by the Bar where this Court’s opinion stated that the attorney at issue had no prior disciplinary record, a severe sanction was imposed due, at least in part, to the attorney’s disregard for the disciplinary process. See Florida Bar v. Jones, 543 So. 2d 751, 751-52 (Fla.1989) (suspending attorney for ninety-one days, even though he had no prior disciplinary history, based on his six rule violations and his “callous disregard” of the disciplinary proceedings); Florida Bar v. Fath, 368 So. 2d 357, 357-60…