THE FLORIDA BAR. IN RE HERMAN COHEN
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.
Herman Cohen seeks reinstatement to practice law following a 91-day suspension for fraudulent conduct. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the referee's recommendation denying reinstatement, finding that Cohen failed to demonstrate adequate rehabilitation.
The Court affirms the referee's recommendation denying Cohen's petition for reinstatement, finding that Cohen failed to meet his burden of establishing rehabilitation as conditioned by his suspension and failed to demonstrate that the referee's report was unsupported by evidence.
[1] A suspended attorney seeking reinstatement bears the burden of establishing entitlement to resume the practice of law.
[2] An attorney seeking reinstatement must demonstrate rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 burden is on Cohen to establish that he is entitled to resume the privilege of practicing law without restrictions.”
Establishes the standard Cohen must meet—that the burden of proof for reinstatement after disciplinary suspension rests entirely on the suspended attorney.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCohen was suspended from practicing law for 91 days beginning November 21, 1988, for engaging in fraudulent conduct. During his suspension, Cohen atte…
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 Petition For Reinstatement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Cohen seeks review of a referee’s report recommending that he not be reinstated to membership in The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 15, of the Florida Constitution.
Cohen received a ninety-one-day suspension from the practice of law for engaging in fraudulent conduct. The Florida Bar v. Cohen, 534 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1988). The suspension was to commence on November 21, 1988, and reinstatement was conditioned upon proof of rehabilitation. Cohen filed his petition for reinstatement on February 24, 1989, and a hearing on the matter was held July 19, 1989.
At the hearing the referee found that rehabilitation was not satisfactorily shown. The referee concluded that Cohen had: (1) attended a deposition and negotiated with another attorney concerning the settlement of a pending case while on suspension; (2) failed to remove his name from his office building while on suspension; (3) failed to notify his clients that he had been suspended; and (4) showed no genuine sense of remorse for the misconduct which led to his suspension.
The burden is on Cohen to establish that he is entitled to resume the privilege of practicing law without restrictions. In re: Petition of Dawson, 131 So. 2d 472 (Fla.1961). Cohen contends that he only attended the deposition as an observer. He says that his failure to remove his name from the building was an oversight. He also points to the testimony of several witnesses who said that he is of good moral character and demonstrable professional ability and integrity.
To support reversal of the referee’s report, Cohen must show that the report is unsupported by the evidence. In re Williams, 538 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla.1989). After careful consideration of the referee’s report, the record, and the briefs of the parties, we find that Cohen has failed to meet this burden. We approve the referee’s report.
Accordingly, Cohen’s petition for reinstatement is denied. Judgment for costs in the amount of $909 is hereby entered against Cohen, 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 Fla. BAR re Walter Benton Dunagan, 775 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2000)…specifically provided to Dunagan by the Bar. Case law from this Court supports the determination that Dunagan’s conduct, even absent faulty trust account administration, constitutes proper grounds for denying reinstatement. See Florida Bar re Cohen, 560 So. 2d 785 (Fla.1990) (approving referee’s denial of petition for reinstatement based on petitioner’s holding out self as an attorney and failing to notify clients during suspension); cf. Florida Bar v. Thomson, 354 So. 2d 872 (Fla.1978) (reinstating suspended…
-
Spike von Zamft v. Cohen, 578 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…eterminations, we have applied the rule that the fact that a party has engaged in inequitable conduct as a general matter or with respect to the public or a third person, see The Florida Bar v. Cohen, 534 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1988), reinstatement denied, 560 So. 2d 785 (Fla.1990), does not affect his legal rights as to another person to whom the improper activity was not directed. Miller v. Berry, 78 Fla. 98, 82 So. 764 (1919). Affirmed in part, reversed in part.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Petition of William B. Dawson, III, 131 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1961)
- THE Fla. BAR. In re Lewis M. Williams, 538 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1989)
- THE Florida BAR v. Cohen, 534 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1988)