THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT
v.
STANLEY L. RISKIN, 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 disciplined attorney Stanley L. Riskin for neglecting a client's legal matter by failing to file a timely cause of action, allowing the statute of limitations to expire. The Court imposed a public reprimand and assessed costs against Riskin, rejecting the referee's recommendation of a private reprimand due to Riskin's prior disciplinary history and the severity of the misconduct.
The Court found Riskin guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(2) and 6-101(A)(3) by failing to timely file the cause of action and neglecting the legal matter entrusted to him. The Court imposed a public reprimand rather than the private reprimand recommended by the referee, finding that the conduct was serious misconduct not contemplated for private reprimand punishment, particularly given Riskin's prior disciplinary history.
[1] A lawyer violates disciplinary rules by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to them.
[2] A lawyer violates disciplinary rules by handling a legal matter without adequate preparation under the circumstances.
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“The respondent had been retained in February, 1981 for the purpose of handling a legal matter for one Evelyn Fox relating to medical treatment received by Ms. Fox as an employee of Eastern Airlines from a person who in fact was not a physician. The respondent failed to file a cause of action until May 16, 1985, well after any applicable statutes of limitation had expired.”
Establishes the basic facts of Riskin's neglect—the four-year delay in filing that caused the statute of limitations to expire, destroying the client's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiskin was retained in February 1981 to handle a legal matter for Evelyn Fox involving medical treatment received as an Eastern Airlines employee from…
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 Private Reprimand cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before the Court for consideration of a referee’s report in a disciplinary action brought by The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Upon trial of two charges made in a complaint filed by The Florida Bar, the referee found that the respondent, Stanley L. Riskin was guilty of one of the charges of neglecting a legal matter. The respondent had been retained in February, 1981 for the purpose of handling a legal matter for one Evelyn Fox relating to medical treatment received by Ms. Fox as an employee of Eastern Airlines from a person who in fact was not a physician. The respondent failed to file a cause of action until May 16, 1985, well after any applicable statutes of limitation had expired. The respondent also failed to recognize that the case had worker’s compensation implications which would have affected Ms. Fox’s recovery.
Upon filing the cause of action, Eastern Airlines moved for a summary judgment based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation. The respondent failed to oppose this motion in any way and the motion was granted. The referee recommended that the respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not handle a matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances) and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him). The referee found insufficient evidence to support a second charge of neglect of a legal matter. We approve this portion of the referee’s report.
The referee recommended that the respondent should be disciplined with a private reprimand. We disagree. The record discloses that the respondent has received a private reprimand in the past for neglect of a legal duty. Evidently the respondent has not taken this reprimand to heart. Furthermore, this is not the sort of minor misconduct contemplated by The Florida Bar Code of Professional Conduct to be punished by private reprimand. Clearly this neglectful conduct warrants a public reprimand.
Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand Stanley L. Riskin, which reprimand shall be published in the Southern Reporter, Second Series. The Florida Bar’s costs in this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against Stanley L. Riskin in the amount of $2,006.45, 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. Corbin, 701 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1997)…n a continuance). The existence of a prior disciplinary record is not dispositive. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Kaplan, 576 So. 2d 1318 (Fla.1991) (imposing public reprimand where the attorney had three prior private reprimands); Florida Bar v. Riskin, 549 So. 2d 178 (Fla.1989) (imposing public reprimand where the attorney had a prior private reprimand). . It was improper for the referee to consider in aggravation the fact that Corbin refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. Corbin's claim of'…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Hurley P. Whitaker, 596 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1992)…Bar Counsel. We approve all the referee’s recommendations except as to the admonishment. Our case law demonstrates that public reprimand is more appropriate in cases such as this which involve neglect of client matters.5 See The Fla. Bar v. Riskin, 549 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla.1989) (imposing public reprimand for neglecting a legal matter and allowing statute'of limitations to run); The Fla. Bar v. Knowlton, 527 So. 2d 1378, 1379 (Fla.1988) (approving referee’s recommendation of public reprimand for same); The F…