THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
DAVID B. HAMILTON, 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 court agreed with The Florida Bar that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for the attorney's cumulative acts of misconduct.
David B. Hamilton, a member of The Florida Bar, failed to respond to requests for admission, thereby admitting to multiple violations of the Rules Reg…
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 Issuing Worthless Checks cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this bar disciplinary matter, instituted by The Florida Bar against David B. Hamilton, a member of The Florida Bar, the bar seeks an order of disbarment.
By failing to respond to requests for admission propounded by The Florida Bar, Hamilton admitted to multiple acts constituting violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. These included misappropriation of clients’ funds, misrepresentations to clients, issuing worthless checks, neglect and abandonment of clients’ cases, and violation of trust account record-keeping and procedures. The referee recommended a three-year suspension, but The Florida Bar contends that disbarment is the appropriate penalty. We agree.
Hamilton’s cumulative acts of misconduct, which included failure to preserve clients’ property, conversion of clients’ property to his own use, misrepresenting facts relative to clients’ property and case status to clients, and writing worthless checks, are serious breaches of ethics standards. Such conduct satisfies us that he is unfit to continue in the practice of law. Because Hamilton has already been disbarred, No. 77,809 (Dec. 12, 1991), there is no need for a formal order of disbarment in this case, but the instant case is a factor to be considered if he ever seeks readmission. Judgment for costs of $1,831.64 is entered on behalf of The Florida Bar against David Hamilton 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. Demarco, 601 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1992)…le retaining several of his client’s original documents. Because respondent failed to answer the requests for admission, the referee deemed the allegations admitted. The Fla. Bar v. Dubbeld, 594 So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla.1992); The Fla. Bar v. Hamilton, 592 So. 2d 1088, 1089 (Fla.1992). The referee found the respondent guilty on all the counts, except Count VI, and recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating, among others, the following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: rule 3-4.3 (engaging in conduct…