THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JAMES G. ROTH, 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 review of a referee's disciplinary recommendation against attorney James G. Roth for misconduct involving a $2,000 earnest money deposit he failed to deposit in his trust account and subsequently neglected to resolve for nearly three years. The Supreme Court affirmed most of the referee's recommendations but imposed a public reprimand instead of a private one, finding the misconduct serious.
Roth violated Rules 4-1.3 (diligence) and 4-1.4 (communication) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. The Court affirmed the referee's recommended discipline including probation, trust account audit, establishment of client communication procedures, resolution of the $2,000 issue with interest, and payment of costs, but imposed a public reprimand instead of a private reprimand due to the seriousness of the misconduct.
[1] An attorney violates rules of professional conduct by failing to deposit client funds into a trust account.
[2] An attorney violates rules of professional conduct by failing to communicate with a client regarding the status of their case and funds.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 was retained by a Mrs. Sharek to represent her in the sale of a piece of property. On or about June 9, 1986[,] Respondent received a $2,000.00 cashier check from a prospective buyer which was to be deposited in Respon[dent's] trust account pending the closing of the sale. Respondent held onto the check and never deposited the $2,000.00 in his trust account.”
Establishes the core factual misconduct—Roth's failure to properly deposit client funds in his trust account
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoth was retained to represent Mrs. Sharek in a real estate transaction. On June 9, 1986, Roth received a $2,000 cashier check from a prospective buye…
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 Private Reprimand cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Bar petitions this Court to review the referee’s recommendation that James G. Roth be privately reprimanded and subjected to other discipline. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The referee made the following relevant findings:
Respondent was retained by a Mrs. Sharek to represent her in the sale of a piece of property. On or about June 9, 1986[,] Respondent received a $2,000.00 cashier check from a prospective buyer which was to be deposited in Respon dent’s trust account pending the closing of the sale. Respondent held onto the check and never deposited the $2,000.00 in his trust account. The closing fell through and a dispute arose between Respondent’s client and the purchaser as to whom the $2,000.00 deposit belonged to under the contract. On November 3, 1986, Respondent filed an interpleader action to determine the conflicting demands on the $2,000.00. On July 7,1988, the interpleader action was dismissed for lack of prosecution. From November 1986 through August 10, 1989, Respondent never returned telephone calls or answered letters inquiring about the status of the $2,000.00
The referee concluded that Roth had violated Rules 4-1.3 and 4-1.4 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. These findings are fully supported by the record and are adopted by this Court.
Based on these findings, the referee recommended: (1) a private reprimand; (2) a minimum of one year’s probation; (3) an order that Roth actively resolve the issue of who owns the $2,000.00; (4) an order that Roth pay twelve percent annual interest on the $2,000.00 from June 9, 1988; (5) an order that Roth hire a certified public accountant to audit his trust accounts, with a report of the audit to be submitted to The Florida Bar; (6) an order that Roth establish a procedure and form for sending documents to his clients and for informing them of the status of their cases, with this procedure and form to be sent to The Florida Bar for review; and (7) an order that Roth pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.
We concur in all of these recommendations except the first. The misconduct in question is serious and is only minimally mitigated by the personal difficulties advanced by Roth to explain his actions. Accordingly, we adopt all of the referee’s recommendations for discipline, with the exception that we impose a public and not a private reprimand. Roth also shall be placed on probation for a period of one year from the date this opinion becomes final.
Roth is hereby publicly reprimanded, ordered to complete all the other items of discipline recommended by the referee above, and shall complete them within the period of probation.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $951.59 is entered in favor of The Florida Bar, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, ehrlich, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.