THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
NEIL A. SHANZER, 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 Supreme Court upheld the disbarment of attorney Neil A. Shanzer for trust fund violations, including misappropriation of client funds and record-keeping failures. The Court rejected Shanzer's arguments that emotional distress and mitigating factors warranted a lesser discipline than disbarment, reaffirming that misuse of client funds is one of the most serious offenses an attorney can commit.
The Court upheld the disbarment recommendation, holding that misuse of client funds is one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit and that disbarment is the presumptively appropriate punishment. The Court rejected Shanzer's mitigating evidence, finding that personal financial and emotional problems cannot excuse an attorney's use of trust funds, and that the referee did not abuse discretion in declining to find sufficient mitigation to warrant suspension instead of disbarment.
[1] Misappropriation of client funds is considered one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit, and disbarment is the presumed appropriate punishment.
[2] Emotional or personal problems, including marital and economic difficulties, do not excuse an attorney's use of client trust funds for personal purposes.
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“This Court has repeatedly asserted that misuse of client funds is one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit and that disbarment is presumed to be the appropriate punishment.”
Establishes the legal standard and presumption that disbarment is appropriate for trust fund misappropriation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShanzer was charged with seven counts involving trust account violations: failure to maintain proper trust account records, retention of interest for …
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 Misappropriation Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before us upon the referee’s report recommending disbarment for trust fund violations. Respondent, Neil A. Shanzer, petitions for review, contending that disbarment is too harsh a punishment in light of the mitigating evidence presented. We have jurisdiction1 and approve the referee’s report.
The Florida Bar filed a seven-count complaint against respondent. Count one alleged violation of the trust account record-keeping requirements. Count two alleged that respondent retained the interest in his trust accounts for his personal use. Counts three, four, five, six, and seven alleged misappropriation of funds and shortages in respondent’s trust account.
Respondent admitted the allegations in an unconditional guilty plea, reserving only the question of discipline before the referee. The referee recommended disbarment after finding three aggravating circumstances: (1) dishonest or selfish motive; (2) a pattern of misconduct; and (3) multiple offenses. Respondent argued before the referee, and reiterates before this Court, that his emotional problems during the nine months which spanned his defalcations, as well as his full cooperation with the Bar, his remorse, rehabilitation, and the payment of restitution, mitigate his conduct and call for discipline less than disbarment.
This Court has repeatedly asserted that misuse of client funds is one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit and that disbarment is presumed to be the appropriate punishment. The Fla. Bar v. Farbstein, 570 So. 2d 933 (Fla.1990); The Fla. Bar v. Newman, 513 So. 2d 656 (Fla.1987). In some cases we have found that presumption rebutted by mitigating evidence, and we imposed the slightly lesser discipline of suspension. See, e.g., The Fla. Bar v. Schiller, 537 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1989). In the overwhelming number of recent cases, we have disbarred attorneys for misappropriation of funds notwithstanding the mitigating evidence presented. See The Fla. Bar v. Shuminer, 567 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1990); The Fla. Bar v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Gillis, 527 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Newhouse, 520 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1988); The Fla. Bar v. Bookman, 502 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1987); The Fla. Bar v. Knowles, 500 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Rodriguez, 489 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1986); The Fla. Bar v. Ross, 417 So. 2d 985 (Fla.1982).
In the case before us, we likewise fail to find that the mitigating evidence submitted warrants a discipline less than disbarment.2 Respondent argues that his depression, primarily over his marital and economic problems, led him to use his trust account for personal purposes. These problems, unfor tunately, are visited upon a great number of lawyers. Clearly, we cannot excuse an attorney for dipping into his trust funds as a means of solving personal problems. We recognize that mental problems as well as alcohol and drug problems may impair judgment so as to dimmish culpability. However, we do not find that the referee abused his discretion in not finding this to be one of those cases.
We are not unmindful of respondent’s cooperation with the Bar and restitution efforts,3 and these efforts should be considered upon any reapplication for membership in The Florida Bar. Accordingly, we hereby disbar respondent pursuant to rule 3 — 5.1(f) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. In order to protect his clients and close out his practice in an orderly fashion, Shanzer is enjoined and prohibited from the practice of law in this state effective thirty days from the date this opinion is filed. Shanzer will accept no new business after the filing date of this opinion. Judgment is entered against Shanzer for costs in the amount of $1,468.25, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, ehrlich, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.; R. Regulating Fla.Bar 3-7.6.
. Respondent’s testimony about his problems was the only evidence presented to the referee.
. Although we note that respondent still owes $3,643.76 in restitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
THE Florida BAR v. MacMILLAN, 600 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1992)…e’s recommended two-year suspension. “This Court has repeatedly asserted that misuse of client funds is one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit and that disbarment is presumed to be the appropriate punishment.” The Fla. Bar v. Shanzer, 572 So. 2d 1382, 1383 (Fla.1991). Indeed, Florida’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provides that “[disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer intentionally or knowingly converts client property regardless of injury or potential injury.” Florida’s Standards fo…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Travis, 765 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2000)…ld that the misuse of client funds held in trust is one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit and that disbarment is presumed to be the appropriate punishment. See Florida Bar v. Tillman, 682 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1996); Florida Bar v. Shanzer, 572 So. 2d 1382 (Fla.1991). While this Court has held in isolated cases that this presumption can be rebutted by mitigating evidence, see id. at 1383, we find the mitigation in this case insufficient to reduce the presumed discipline. The overwhelming majority of…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Korones, 752 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2000)…, 503 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla.1986)). This Court has also held that disbarment is presumed to be the appropriate discipline for misuse of client funds; however, this presumption can be rebutted by mitigating circumstances. See Florida Bar v. Shanzer, 572 So. 2d 1382, 1383 (Fla.1991). The reason that misuse of client funds warrants such a severe discipline has been articulated as follows: The single most important concern of this Court in defining and regulating the practice of law is the protection of the publ…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- THE Florida BAR v. Shuminer, 567 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1990)
- THE Florida BAR v. Schiller, 537 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1989)
- THE Florida BAR v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1989)
- THE Florida BAR v. Newman, 513 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1987)
- THE Florida BAR v. Knowles, 500 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Fitzgerald, 541 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1989)
- THE Florida BAR v. Farbstein, 570 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1990)
- THE Florida BAR v. Newhouse, 520 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Jackson, 417 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Ollinger, 489 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1986)