THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOHN G. FATOLITIS, 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 reviewed a disciplinary case against attorney John G. Fatolitis, who signed his wife's name as a witness to a client's will and improperly dated the document. The court approved the referee's factual findings but increased the sanction from a private reprimand to a public reprimand.
The court approved the referee's findings that Fatolitis violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) but determined that a public reprimand, rather than a private reprimand, is the appropriate sanction.
[1] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by forging a witness's signature on a will.
[2] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by improperly dating a will prior to its execution and failing to correct the date.
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 intelligence“I therefore find that Mrs. Fatolitis was present when the respondent signed her name to the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis. In addition, I find that the respondent violated Florida Statute Section 732.502(l)(c) by signing his wife's name to the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis.”
Establishes the referee's core findings that Fatolitis committed the violation while Mrs. Fatolitis was present and unable to sign due to injury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn September 1982, Fatolitis was retained to prepare a will for Mike Syredis. Fatolitis signed his wife Evelyn's name as a witness to the will because…
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 Will Execution Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before the Court on the petition of The Florida Bar challenging the referee’s report, which recommended that John G. Fatolitis be given a private reprimand. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We approve the referee’s findings of fact, yet find that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.
The referee found:
That on or about September 3, 1982, the respondent was retained by Mike Syredis to prepare his Last Will and Testament. The Florida Bar has charged the respondent with forging the signature of his wife, Evelyn J. Fatolitis, as a witness to the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis.
The only witnesses produced by The Florida Bar at the final hearing were the respondent and his wife Evelyn J. Fatoli-tis. Both witnesses testified that the respondent did in fact sign Evelyn J. Fatolitis’ name as a witness to the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis. However, the witnesses testified that Evelyn J. Fatolitis was present when Mr. Syredis executed his Will, when the respondent signed as a witness to the Will and when the respondent signed Mrs. Fatolitis’ name as a witness to the Will of Mike Syredis. In addition, both witnesses testified that Evelyn Fatolitis burned her right hand on the evening of September 3, 1982 and thus was unable to sign her own name as a witness to the execution of Mike Syredis’ Last Will and Testament.
The Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis is dated September 7, 1982. The Florida Bar submitted evidence to the referee which established that Mrs. Fa-tolitis could sign her own name on September 5, 1982, two days prior to the date of Mr. Syredis’ Last Will and Testament. However, both Mr. & Mrs. Fatoli-tis testified that the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis which was dated September 7,1982, was actually executed on Saturday, September 4, 1982.
All of the evidence submitted by The Florida Bar is suspectible [sic] to a different inference than the evidence and testimony of the respondent and his wife, however, the referee has given the benefit of the doubt to the respondent. I therefore find that Mrs. Fatolitis was present when the respondent signed her name to the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis. In addition, I find that the respondent violated Florida Statute Section 732.502(l)(c) by signing his wife’s name to the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis. Furthermore, I find that the respondent improperly dated the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis by dating the Will prior to its execution and then failing to correct the date contained in the Will to reflect the date that it was actually executed. Finally, I find that the respondent did not have anything to gain by signing his wife’s name as a witness to the Last Will and Testament of Mike Syredis.
The referee found that Fatolitis violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on one’s fitness to practice law). For this conduct, the referee recommended that Fa-tolitis be given a private reprimand. The Florida Bar disagrees with the referee and brings this petition, requesting this Court to impose a public rather than a private reprimand.
We approve the referee’s factual findings. However, after considering all of the circumstances before the referee, we conclude that the appropriate sanction in this case is a public reprimand.
Accordingly, John G. Fatolitis is ordered to appear before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar to receive a public reprimand. Judgment for costs in the amount of $1,961.63 is hereby entered against Fa-tolitis, 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. COX, 794 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2001)…rson, 538 So. 2d 852 (Fla.1989), in that case, a public reprimand was imposed in connection with conduct intended to mislead and deceive an appellate court. Forgery was found to exist in connection with legal proceedings in Florida Bar v. Fatolitis, 546 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1989), which resulted in a public reprimand. Lack of candor during the discovery process produced a public reprimand in Florida Bar v. Wright, 520 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1988), and a public reprimand was imposed for false statements made by an attorne…1 / 2
-
THE Florida BAR v. Corbin, 701 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1997)…attorney has made a false statement to a court. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. McLawhorn, 535 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1988) (imposing public reprimand); Florida Bar v. Sax, 530 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1988) (imposing public reprimand). See also Florida Bar v. Fatolitis, 546 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1989) (imposing public reprimand for forging wife’s name as a witness); Florida Bar v. Story, 529 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1988) (imposing thirty-day suspension for improperly notarizing will); Florida Bar v. Morrison, 496 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1986) (impos…