THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
WILLIAM A. CALVO, III, 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.
An order of suspension issued by the SEC is not a final adjudication of discipline by a foreign jurisdiction under rule 3-4.6.
Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against Calvo after the SEC suspended him for two years and enjoined him from violating federal securities la…
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 Securities Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William A. Calvo, III, seeks review of an order limiting issues in this disciplinary proceeding to the appropriate discipline pursuant to rule 3-4.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against Calvo after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an order and opinion suspending Calvo from appearing or practicing before the SEC for a period of two years. Prior to suspending Calvo, the SEC successfully sought a civil injunction in federal district court enjoining Calvo from violating various anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
We recently addressed the question of whether an order of suspension issued by the SEC is a final adjudication of discipline by a foreign jurisdiction under rule 3-4.6, holding that it is not. The Fla. Bar v. Tepps, 601 So. 2d 1174 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we reject the referee’s order limiting the issues in this proceeding and remand for a full evidentiary hearing.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Calvo, 630 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1993)…king the disbarment effective at that time. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur. . We previously have addressed a more limited question posed by this case. The Florida Bar v. Calvo, 601 So. 2d 1194 (Fla.1992). . We recognize, of course, that Chamberlain ultimately was not called as a witness because the strategy of the parties changed as the case progressed. Nevertheless, the fact that he was a potential witness constituted sufficient grounds…
-
Douglas J. Phillips, Jr., D.D.S. v. Bd. of Dentistry, 884 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ion 120.57(1), Florida Statutes; (2) the statute under which the agency operates provides guidelines for imposing penalties; and (3) the increased penalty falls within the guidelines established by its statute. Id.; Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Hood, 601 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla.1992). The dentist argues that no rule authorizes a revocation of license for practicing below the applicable standard. But revocation is stated as a penalty for violating section 466.028(l)(x), Florida Statutes (2003) (incompetence or n…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Tepps, 601 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1992)