THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ROBERT W. BLUNT, 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 disbarment of attorney Robert W. Blunt for neglecting legal matters, improper trust accounting, and misusing client funds. Although a referee recommended only a twelve-month suspension, the Florida Supreme Court approved the findings of guilt but imposed disbarment, finding the misconduct warranted the more severe penalty.
Disbarment is the appropriate discipline. The court disbarred Robert W. Blunt effective immediately, finding that the referee's recommended punishment was insufficient given the magnitude of his misconduct.
[1] An attorney's abandonment of their practice and clients, coupled with misuse of client funds, warrants disbarment.
[2] A referee's recommended discipline may be rejected by the court when it is deemed insufficient given the severity of the attorney's misconduct.
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“Blunt repeatedly ignored his clients' interests and misused their moneys and, ultimately, abandoned them without notice.”
Establishes the nature and severity of Blunt's misconduct that warranted disbarment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlunt was charged in three consolidated complaints totaling seven counts involving neglect of legal matters, improper trust accounting, and misuse of …
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 Misuse Of Client Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the referee’s report on three consolidated complaints against Robert W. Blunt, a member of The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Although we approve the recommended findings of guilt, we reject the recommended discipline and, instead, disbar Blunt from the practice of law.
The three complaints include a total of seven counts and charge neglect of legal matters, improper trust accounting, and misuse of client funds, among other things. It appears that Blunt participated in the earliest proceedings against him, but, at some point in time, abandoned his practice and disappeared. After a hearing, at which Blunt did not respond, the referee recommended that he be found guilty of violating numerous provisions of the former code of professional conduct and the current Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.* Although the bar sought disbarment, the referee recommended a twelvemonth suspension and payment of costs. Neither side petitioned for review, but, after inspecting these files, this Court ordered briefs on the recommended discipline. The bar now asks that Blunt be disbarred; Blunt has not responded.
After reviewing these cases, we agree that disbarment is warranted. Blunt repeatedly ignored his clients’ interests and misused their moneys and, ultimately, abandoned them without notice. We have not hesitated to disbar attorneys who injure their clients and abandon their practice. E.g., The Florida Bar v. Setien, 530 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1988); The Florida Bar v. Ribowsky-Cruz, 529 So. 2d 1100 (Fla.1988); The Florida Bar v. Murray, 489 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1986). Given the magnitude of Blunt’s misconduct, the referee’s recommended punishment is insufficient.
Therefore, we disbar Robert W. Blunt, effective immediately upon the filing of this opinion. Judgment for costs in the amount of $3,027.85 is hereby entered against Blunt, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, ehrlioh, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. *
The specific provisions are: former integration rule 11.02(3)(a) and 11.02(4); former disciplinary rules 1-102(A)(5) and (6), 2-110(A)(1) and (2), 3-104(C) and (D), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-104(A), 9-102(B)(3); and Rules Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-1.4(a) and (b), 4-1.15(d), 4-1.16(d), 4-3.2, 4-5.3(b), 4-8.4(a), (c), and (d), 5-1.1, and 5-1.1(a).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Benny A. Setien, 530 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1988)
- THE Florida BAR v. Murray, 489 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Enid J. Ribowsky-Cruz, 529 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1988)