THE FLORIDA BAR RE: GARY ERIC SUSSER
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 approved a referee's recommendation to reinstate attorney Gary Susser to the Florida Bar despite his subsequent disbarment in Ohio for the same conduct. The Court held that where Florida has already imposed final discipline for misconduct, a harsher sanction imposed later by the attorney's home state does not justify imposing greater burdens in Florida.
The Court held that Susser should be reinstated to practice in Florida. Where an attorney has been subjected to final disciplinary proceedings in Florida prior to disbarment in his home state for the same conduct, the subsequent disbarment does not justify imposing greater burdens than those already imposed by Florida.
[1] A prior final adjudication of discipline in Florida for specific misconduct precludes imposing a more severe sanction based solely on a subsequent disbarment by another j…
[2] A Florida attorney disbarred in their home state may be reinstated in Florida if a prior disciplinary proceeding in Florida regarding the same conduct had already reached…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 fact that another jurisdiction imposed a more severe sanction for the same misconduct does not justify our placing any greater burdens on the petitioner than those already imposed”
Establishes the key principle that harsher sanctions from other jurisdictions for the same conduct do not justify greater Florida discipline after final adjudication
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusser was convicted of felony drug abuse in Ohio in 1989 and suspended from practice for one year. While on probation, he was charged and convicted o…
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 Reinstatement To Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before the Court on the petition for review of a referee’s recommendation that Gary E. Susser’s petition for reinstatement to the practice of law be granted. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.
In 1989, Susser was convicted of felony drug abuse in Ohio and placed on probation. Therefore, he was suspended from the practice of law by this Court for one year. While on probation, he was charged and convicted of four additional felonies in Ohio. As a result, Susser was suspended by this Court for three years, nunc pro tunc, to November 14, 1989.
On appeal, all four felony convictions were reversed. Three were overturned for lack of credible evidence and one was reduced to a fourth-degree misdemeanor.
Consequently, the suspension was reduced to two years with the requirement that as a condition of Susser’s reinstatement to the Bar, he was required to pass all portions of the Florida Bar exam. Susser passed all portions of the Bar exam and filed his petition for reinstatement in March 1993.
However, on April 7, 1993, the Ohio Supreme Court disbarred Susser in his home state of Ohio because of the same four felony convictions. The referee concluded that the Ohio ruling was harsh and recommended that Sus-ser be reinstated.
The Bar argues that because of our ruling in The Florida Bar re Sanders, 580 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1991), Susser should not be allowed to practice law in Florida. Specifically, this Court stated in Sanders that “[w]e should not allow the practice of law in Florida of one disbarred in his home state.” Id. See also Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re R.L.V.H., 587 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1991).
However, in Sanders, the petitioner was disbarred in his home state of New York before any final disciplinary action was taken in Florida. The instant case may be distinguished from Sanders in that Susser had been subjected to a final disciplinary proceeding in Florida prior to being disbarred in his home state. This ease is similar to The Florida Bar re Sickmen, 523 So. 2d 154 (Fla.1988), in which the petitioner had already been subjected to a disciplinary proceeding in Florida when he was subsequently disbarred in his home state for the same conduct. We held that “the fact that another jurisdiction imposed a more severe sanction for the same misconduct does not justify our placing any greater burdens on the petitioner than those already imposed.” Id. at 155.
Because the previous ruling in the case at bar was a final adjudication of discipline regarding the misconduct in question, it would be unfair now to impose discipline to a higher degree based solely on a disbarment by Sus-ser’s home state that was premised upon the same conduct. Susser complied fully with the requirements previously imposed by the referee, and the record supports his current recommendation. Therefore, we approve the referee’s report and hereby reinstate Gary E. Susser to the practice of law in Florida.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re Joseph J. Higgins, 772 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2000)…effect at the time of his disbarment somehow preclude the application of rule 2-13.1, he does in effect argue that this Court’s order disbarring him for only three years precludes it. In support of this argument, Higgins cites Florida Bar re Susser, 639 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1994). There, the attorney was first suspended in Florida and later disbarred in another state based on the same misconduct. This Court permitted reinstatement despite the disbarment in the other state reasoning that where Florida’s previous ru…1 / 2
-
Fla. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs re Ellis Stewart Simring, 802 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2000)…ause New York imposes a longer standard disbarment period than that imposed in Florida. To do so would effectively result in a harsher discipline than that which resulted from the final disciplinary proceedings in Florida. Cf. Florida Bar re Susser, 639 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1994) (reinstating attorney and reasoning that where Florida suspension was a final adjudication of discipline regarding the misconduct in question, it would be unfair to effectively impose a harsher discipline based solely on disbarment in ano…
-
The Fla. Bar re Gary H. Untracht, 923 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2006)…Sanders, 580 So. 2d at 594-95. We have since recognized only one exception to the rule laid down in Sanders— namely, the rule does not apply where the Florida discipline became final before the discipline in the other state. See Fla. Bar re Susser, 639 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1994) (reinstating attorney suspended in Florida and subsequently disbarred in Ohio for crimes in Ohio, even though the attorney had not been readmitted in Ohio); see also Fla. Bar re Sickmen, 523 So. 2d 154 (Fla.1988) (reinstating attorney sus…
Authorities Cited
- THE Fla. BAR In re Russell T. Sickmen, 523 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1988)
- THE Fla. BAR Re: Sheldon J. Sanders, 580 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1991)
- Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re R.L.V.H., 587 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1991)