THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
RONALD S. GOLUB, 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 Bar disciplined attorney Ronald S. Golub for stealing approximately $23,608 from an estate he was managing as personal representative. The Supreme Court imposed a five-year disbarment, rejecting both the referee's three-year suspension recommendation and the respondent's mitigation arguments based on alcoholism.
Disbarment for five years is the appropriate discipline. While alcoholism may explain the attorney's conduct, it does not excuse it, and the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the seriousness of stealing from a client who entrusted the attorney with the estate.
[1] Stealing from a client is among the most serious offenses for which lawyers may be disciplined.
[2] While alcoholism may explain a lawyer's misconduct, it does not excuse it.
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“In the hierarchy of offenses for which lawyers may be disciplined, stealing from a client must be among those at the very top of the list.”
Establishes that theft from clients is among the most serious disciplinary offenses, rejecting the idea that alcoholism can excuse such conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGolub was an attorney and personal representative for the Estate of Cecil Harlig. Between 1984 and 1986, he removed approximately $23,608.34 from the …
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 Disciplinary Rule 9-102(B)(4) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of a referee’s report filed pursuant to rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The respondent stipulated to the following facts, waiving a finding of probable cause:
(1) That the Respondent was an attorney and personal representative for the Estate of Cecil Harlig.
(2) That during the period of 1984 through 1986 the Respondent removed approximately $23,608.34 from the Estate of Cecil Harlig.
(3) That the Respondent did not have the permission of the heirs, debtors, or the Probate Court to remove said funds.
(4) That the removed funds have not been replaced to date.
Although admitting a violation of Disciplinary Rule 9-102(B)(4) of the Florida Bar’s former Code of Professional Responsibility, the respondent argues that his extreme alcoholism, as the principal cause of his actions, significantly mitigates those actions. The referee agreed, recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years.
Both the respondent and The Florida Bar petition this Court to reject that recommendation. The Florida Bar urges disbarment as the only appropriate sanction for these actions. The respondent argues that his alcoholism, as well as other mitigating circumstances such as his cooperation in these proceedings, his voluntary self-imposed suspension since 1986, and the absence of any prior disciplinary record, lead to the conclusion that a three-year suspension is too severe.
In this case, we agree with The Florida Bar. While alcoholism explains the respondent’s conduct, it does not excuse it. As we stated in The Florida Bar v. Tunsil, 503 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla.1986), “[i]n the hierarchy of offenses for which lawyers may be disciplined, stealing from a client must be among those at the very top of the list.” Although we may consider such factors as alcoholism and cooperation in mitigation, we must also determine the extent and weight of such mitigating circumstances when balanced against the seriousness of the misconduct.
In this case, we believe that these circumstances do not outweigh the fact that the respondent stole substantial sums of money over an extended period of time from a client who had bestowed his trust upon the respondent to see that the client’s beneficiaries were cared for after his death. The respondent betrayed that trust and has subsequently failed to repay the monies he removed. For such conduct, disbarment is the appropriate discipline.
Accordingly, we hereby disbar Ronald S. Golub for a period of five years, effective September 28, 1989, the date of this opinion. Golub may petition the Florida Board of Bar Examiners for reinstatement five years from the date of this opinion, although he may not be reinstated unless he submits proof of alcoholic rehabilitation. The Florida Bar’s costs in this proceeding are assessed against respondent. Judgment is entered against Ronald S. Golub in the amount of $923.45, 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 (15 total)
-
THE Florida BAR v. Shanzer, 572 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 1991)…992 (Fla.1989). In the overwhelming number of recent cases, we have disbarred attorneys for misappropriation 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, 50…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Korones, 752 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2000)…ting Florida Bar v. Lord, 433 So. 2d 983, 986 (Fla.1983)). This Court has held that “[i]n the hierarchy of offenses for which lawyers may be disciplined, stealing from a client must be among those at the very top of the list.” Florida Bar v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla.1989)(quoting Florida Bar v. Tunsil, 503 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla.1986)). This Court has also held that disbarment is presumed to be the appropriate discipline for misuse of client funds; however, this presumption can be rebutted by mitigati…1 / 2
-
THE Florida BAR v. Graham, 605 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1992)…Fla.1989). In the overwhelming number of recent cases, we have [*56] disbarred attorneys for misappropriation 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, 50…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Merrill Tunsil, 503 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1986)