THE FLORIDA BAR RE BRUCE L. HOLLANDER
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 held that two disciplinary reprimands for charging excessive fees constitute a sufficient basis to deny recertification as a board-certified lawyer.
An attorney sought recertification as a board-certified real estate lawyer but was denied by The Florida Bar due to two prior disciplinary reprimands …
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.
PER CURIAM.
Bruce L. Hollander seeks review of a decision of The Florida Bar denying his recertification as a Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Mr. Hollander has met all the technical requirements for recertification. He was denied recertification because he received two disciplinary reprimands. The first reprimand was predicated on a finding that he charged an excessive fee in a construction lien case, and the second was based on a finding that he charged an excessive fee in a personal injury case. The reprimands were imposed in 1992 and 1993.
Hollander avers that each of these reprimands resulted from actions of associates in his office, that he has changed the operation of his office, and that no ethical misbehavior will be repeated. He further notes that none of the complaints arose from any real estate transaction and asserts that, while he greatly regrets these matters, they should not be a sufficient basis to prevent his recertification.
The Bar concedes that the only bases for the denial were the two grievance matters. They remind us, however, that one of the requirements for recertification is statutory peer review and a satisfactory professional ethics record. Specifically, Rule 6-3.6, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which deals with recertification of lawyers, provides that the applicant must demonstrate satisfactory peer review and an appropriate professional ethics record. The Bar argues that if a lawyer is twice publicly reprimanded for violations dealing with fee arrangements, and is still permitted to hold himself out as a board certified real estate attorney, the ethical standards for certification would be meaningless.
We agree with the Bar and conclude that good reason exists to deny Mr. Hollander’s recertification as a board certified lawyer. His petition is denied.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Morse, 784 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2001)…is report. . Although Morse claims that the misconduct in question here (relating to a probate matter) is unrelated to his area of certification (marital and family law), the policy does not contemplate such a defense. Cf. Florida Bar re Hollander, 638 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1994) (denying petition for review from denial of recertification by the BLSE despite attorney's assertions that previous disciplinary actions were unrelated to area of certification).…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Kavanaugh, 915 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2005)…led to. The Respondent's client, a senior citizen, suffered actual and substantial harm as a result of the Respondent's misconduct. . The sole case cited by the Bar to support revocation is distinguishable in this regard. See Fla. Bar re Hollander, 638 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1994) (approving the denial of recertifi-cation following two disciplinary reprimands for charging an excessive fee). Unlike the present case, Hollander was a recertification case governed by rule 6-3.6, not a revocation case governed by rule 6…