THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
HIRAM LEE BAUMAN, 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 Court disbars the respondent attorney for the unauthorized practice of law while suspended, finding disbarment appropriate due to his willful defiance of a prior court order.
The respondent attorney was suspended from practice and ordered to pass a professional responsibility exam. While suspended, he engaged in multiple ac…
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 Suspension From Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review The Florida Bar’s petition challenging a referee's recommendation in disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for the unauthorized practice of law while suspended.*
This Court suspended respondent for six months effective May 1, 1987, and ordered him to take and pass the professional responsibility exam as a condition of reinstatement. The Florida Bar v. Bauman, 505 So. 2d 1326 (Fla.1987). While suspended, the respondent engaged in at least five distinct acts of practicing law. On one of these occasions he was held in contempt by a circuit judge for holding himself out as an attorney. Yet subsequent to the contempt citation he again represented clients in court.
The referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the Bar for three years. The Bar contends that the respondent should be disbarred because of his egregious behavior in defiance of this Court’s order. Respondent argues that “[d]isbarment is an extreme penalty and should only be imposed in those rare cases where rehabilitation is highly improbable.” The Florida Bar v. Davis, 361 So. 2d 159, 161 (Fla.1978). We can think of no person less likely to be rehabilitated than someone like respondent, who wilfully, deliberately, and continuously, refuses to abide by an order of this Court. We agree with the Bar that disbarment is appropriate. We adopt the findings of the referee and disapprove the recommended penalty.
The respondent is hereby disbarred effective immediately and enjoined from the practice of law. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,337.45 is hereby 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. *
We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (40 total)
-
McKENDRY v. State, 641 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1994)…rosecution or punishment for any crime previously committed. Art. X, § 9, Fla. Const. This provision was enacted in 1885 to negate a recent court ruling that let an attempted murderer go free after repeal of the assault statute. See State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla.1990). The Ex Post Facto Clause is inapplicable here because retrospective application of the rescission of the mandatory minimum provision would not disadvantage the defendant. Further, the Savings Clause by its own terms applies only to chan…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Shoureas, 913 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2005)…o. 2d 734 (Fla.1996) (same). . See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Weisser, 721 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1998); Fla. Bar v. Neely, 675 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1996); Fla. Bar v. Brown, 635 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1994); Fla. Bar v. Greene, 589 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1991); Fla. Bar v. Bauman, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla.1990); Fla. Bar v. Winter, 549 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1989). . The cases cited by the Bar to support disbarment are all distinguishable. See Fla. Bar v. Rood, 678 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Fla.1996) (disbarring lawyer who violated both a two-year suspension…1 / 2
-
Smiley v. State, 966 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2007)…ng] in any way with crime or its punishment.” Id., 109 So. at 591. In the instant matter, section 776.013 qualifies as a “criminal statute,” because it has a direct impact on the prosecution of the offense of “murder” in Florida. Cf. State v. Watts, 558 So. 2d 994, 999-1000 (Fla.1990) (holding that article X, section 9 did not prevent retroactive application of the legislation, because the parties could still “be prosecuted and punished in the same manner”) (quoting Ex parte Pells, 28 Fla. 67, 9 So. 833, 834-…
Previewing 3 of 40 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. Davis, 361 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1978)
- THE Florida BAR v. Bauman, 505 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 1987)