THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
CRAIG D. WARREN, ETC., RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unlicensed Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This Court previously enjoined respondent from the unlicensed practice of law. Florida Bar v. Warren, 655 So. 2d 1131 (Fla.1995). At the same time we entered an order to show cause why respondent should not be ordered to pay restitution to those individuals who paid for his purported legal services. Thereafter, respondent filed a statement in response to the order to show cause. The Court notes that the Rules Governing the Investigation and Prosecution of the Unlicensed Practice of Law contained in chapter 10 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar contain no provision authorizing the ordering of restitution. Upon consideration, the order .to show cause is hereby discharged. Those persons aggrieved by respondent’s action may seek redress through civil proceedings. The injunction against respondent remains in full force and effect.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pender v. State, 700 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1997)…earing per se reversible. Pender v. State, 647 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA mi)(Pender I). This Court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded for reconsideration in [*666] light of State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995). State v. Pender, 661 So. 2d 304 (Fla.1995)(Pender II). In Schopp, we overruled Smith and found the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing was no longer per se reversible but could be harmless error if there was no reasonable possibility that the discovery violation procedurally p…
-
Pender v. State, 682 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…e unimportance of what it depicted under the facts of this ease. AFFIRMED. PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Pender v. State, 647 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review granted, 654 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1995). . State v. Pender, 661 So. 2d 304 (Fla.1995).…
-
C.D.B. v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ally different had the violation not occurred. Id. at 1020. Harmless error analysis is also necessary when the defense’s violation of a discovery rule results in exclusion of defense evidence without an adequate Richardson hearing. State v. Pender, 661 So. 2d 304 (Fla.1995); O’Rourke v. State, 661 So. 2d 800 (Fla.1995), aff'g O’Rourke v. State, 645 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). “[I]n the vast majority of cases it will be readily apparent that the record is insufficient to support a finding of harmless erro…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Florida BAR v. Warren, 655 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1995)