THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JACK PERLMUTTER, 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 disciplined attorney Jack Perlmutter for professional misconduct including threatening citizens with lawsuits, making threats of retaliation against Bar complainants, improper referral fee agreements, and paying legal fees to nonlawyers. The Florida Supreme Court approved a public reprimand as the appropriate discipline.
The Florida Supreme Court approved the consent judgment and imposed a public reprimand on attorney Jack Perlmutter for violations of professional conduct rules and the Oath of Admission, including conduct contrary to honesty and justice, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, improper referral fee agreements, and payment of legal fees to nonlawyers.
[1] Engaging in conduct contrary to honesty and justice by threatening citizens with multiple lawsuits, verbally attacking them personally, narrowing their standing in the co…
[2] Threatening to retaliate against citizens who file complaints with The Florida Bar and making threats without independent knowledge or investigation of the true facts is…
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“The respondent admits he has violated Rule of Discipline 3-4.3 for engaging in conduct that is contrary to honesty and justice by threatening citizens with multiple lawsuits, verbally attacking them personally, narrowing their standing in the community, and impugning their motivation and standing in the community without just cause”
Establishes the core misconduct admitted by respondent involving dishonest and unjust conduct toward citizens
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Perlmutter engaged in conduct contrary to honesty and justice by threatening citizens with multiple lawsuits, verbally attacking them perso…
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 Professional Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding in which the respondent submitted a conditional guilty plea for a consent judgment providing for a public reprimand. The case is before the Court for review pursuant to rule 3-7.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The Court’s jurisdiction is based on article V, section 15, Florida Constitution.
In his conditional guilty plea, the respondent admitted certain conduct as follows:
5. The respondent admits he has violated Rule of Discipline 3-4.3 for engaging in conduct that is contrary to honesty and justice by threatening citizens with multiple lawsuits, verbally attacking them personally, narrowing their standing in the community, and impugning their motivation and standing in the community without just cause; Rule of Pro fessional Conduct 4-8.4(d) for engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice by threatening to retaliate against citizens who file complaints with The Florida Bar and by making threats without any independent knowledge or investigation of the true facts; and the Oath of Admission for failing to abstain from all offensive personality by indulging in vituperative correspondence on behalf of a client, and, while doing so, by advancing allegations prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party.
7. The respondent admits he has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.-5(G) for entering into an agreement for payment of a referral fee that is excessive given the proportion of services performed by the referring attorney and for which the referring attorney cannot assume joint legal responsibility for the representation; and 4-5.4 for entering into an agreement providing for the payment for legal fees to a nonlawyer. The consent judgment for discipline was approved by the Board of Governors through a designated reviewer and was accepted by the referee, who thereupon filed a report recommending imposition of a public reprimand. We approve the recommended discipline and hereby reprimand attorney Jack Perlmutter for professional misconduct. Judgment for costs is hereby entered against respondent in the amount of $809.20, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2000)…ary involvement in this case. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Black, 602 So. 2d 1298, 1298 (Fla.1992) (disciplining attorney for violating rule 4-8.4(d) and other disciplinary rules in self-serving loan transaction with client); Florida Bar v. Perlmutter, 582 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla.1991) (disciplining attorney for violating rule 4-8.4(d) and other disciplinary rules by, among other things, “threatening to retaliate against citizens who file complaints with The Florida Bar”). We accordingly reject Frederick’s argument…