THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
FREEMAN D. TATE, 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 sought to enjoin Freeman D. Tate from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida. The court found that Tate, who was not licensed in Florida but was admitted in Pennsylvania, had engaged in unauthorized practice by filing pleadings as counsel of record, distributing misleading business cards, and not properly disclosing his limited admission status to clients. The court granted the injunction and ordered Tate to cease all unauthorized legal practice in Florida.
The court held that Tate engaged in unauthorized practice of law in Florida by failing to properly identify himself as a foreign attorney, filing pleadings without authorization, and otherwise practicing law without Bar admission. The court permanently enjoined Tate from representing himself as a Bar member, using business cards or letterhead identifying him as an attorney without specifying his Pennsylvania-only admission, and from engaging in the practice of law in Florida.
[1] A person not licensed to practice law in Florida may be enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
[2] The unauthorized practice of law includes filing pleadings as attorney of record without proper court authorization.
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“Respondent, at all times material herein, was not and is not a member of The Florida Bar, and was not therefor licensed to engage in the practice of law in the State of Florida.”
Establishes the foundational fact that Tate lacked authorization to practice law in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTate was not a member of The Florida Bar and was not licensed to practice law in Florida, though he was admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. Despite …
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 Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1107] PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us upon the petition of The Florida Bar to enjoin Freeman D. Tate from the unauthorized practice of law. We have jurisdiction.* We appointed a referee to consider this matter and to submit a report to this Court.
The referee concluded that respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the state of Florida based upon the following findings of fact:
A. ... Respondent, at all times material herein, was not and is not a member of The Florida Bar, and was not therefor licensed to engage in the practice of law in the State of Florida.
B. This Referee does find that the Respondent did in the past engage in the practice of law in the State of Florida as said practice has been defined in The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1962), rev’d on other grounds, 373 U.S. 379 [83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428] (1963); The Florida Bar v. Scussel[], 240 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1970); The Florida Bar v. Moran, 273 So. 2d 390 (Fla.1973); The Florida Bar v. Kaiser, 397 So. 2d 1132 (Fla.1981); The Florida Bar v. Kaufman[n], 452 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1984), by handing out business cards which do not otherwise represent him to be a foreign attorney; by not properly representing himself to be a foreign attorney who is not licensed to practice law to clients who engaged him in this jurisdiction, by filing pleadings as attorney of record in Dade County Circuit and County Courts without first obtaining proper Court authorization to appear pursuant to applicable Rules of Judicial Administration and by otherwise “practicing law” in this jurisdiction without obtaining admission into The Florida Bar. We approve the referee’s report and adopt his recommendations:
B. That Respondent be restrained and enjoined from representing to anyone that he is a member of the Florida Bar; from utilizing any cards, letterhead or other written material identifying him as attorney at law without otherwise specifying that he is only admitted to practice in the State of Pennsylvania and from otherwise engaging in the practice of law in the State of Florida.
C.That the costs of this proceeding be taxed against the Respondent.
Respondent is permanently so enjoined. Judgment for costs in the amount of $256.49 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. *
Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar-Advertising Rules, 762 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1999)…om any advertising by newspaper, television or otherwise that would tend to mislead the public into believing he is a member of The Florida Bar or authorized to practice in this state.... Kaiser, 397 So. 2d at 1133-34; see also Florida Bar v. Tate, 552 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla.1989) (enjoining Pennsylvania attorney from representing that he was a member of The Florida Bar; from utilizing any cards, letterhead, or other written material identifying him as attorney at law without otherwise specifying that he was…
-
Basil Yanakakis v. Chandris, S.A., 9 F.3d 1509 (11th Cir. 1993)…. . In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. . Defendants cite The Florida Bar v. Tate, 552 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1989). In Tate, an out-of-state attorney was found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Id. However, in Tate, unlike the instant case, the attorney filed pleadings. Moreover, the Tate court did not address the validity of re…
-
Gould v. Harkness, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2006)…bar or his limited area of practice (immigration), the defendant had knowingly created the impression that he was authorized to practice in Florida on his own, and therefore had committed UPL. See id. Similarly, in Florida Bar v. Tate, 552 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1989), the Court held that the defendant, a member of the Pennsylvania bar but not Florida, had committed UPL by handing out business cards which did not otherwise represent him to a be foreign attorney. The Tate Court ordered *1361…
Authorities Cited
- Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida BAR, 373 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1963)
- State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962)
- THE Florida BAR v. Scussel, 240 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1970)
- THE Florida BAR v. Moran, 273 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1973)
- THE Florida BAR v. Kaufmann, 452 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Reynolds, 397 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. LaMAIRE, 397 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1981)