THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GARY H. NEELY, 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 Florida Supreme Court permanently disbarred attorney Gary H. Neely for continuing to practice law after a 1991 disbarment order, finding he accepted fees and represented clients in legal matters while barred from practice. This case represents the culmination of extensive prior disciplinary actions against Neely.
The Court permanently disbarred Neely from practicing law in Florida, finding him guilty of unauthorized practice of law after being disbarred. The Court ordered Neely to return the remaining $500 accepted from the client and to pay costs of $2,564.73, and imposed conditions for incarceration or fines for any future violations of the disbarment order.
[1] Practicing law after being disbarred constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
[2] A referee's findings of fact in a disciplinary proceeding are approved when adequately supported by the record.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 referee found that after Neely had been disbarred he met with a would-be client and accepted $1000 to prepare a legal malpractice suit against another lawyer. Neely has since returned only $500 of the fee. The referee also found that Neely filed a complaint in circuit court on behalf of a corporation and represented that corporation in a legal capacity for nearly two months.”
Establishes the factual basis for the unauthorized practice of law charge after disbarment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, the Florida Supreme Court disbarred Neely from practicing law. Despite this disbarment order, Neely subsequently met with a prospective clien…
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 Unauthorized Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar (the Bar) and the referee’s report regarding alleged ethical breaches by Gary H. Neely. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We approve the report and disbar Neely permanently.
The Court in 1991 disbarred Neely from the practice of law in Florida for ethical violations. Florida Bar v. Neely, 587 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1991). The Bar subsequently filed a petition to show cause why Neely should not be further disciplined for continuing to practice law after he was disbarred.
The referee found that after Neely had been disbarred he met with a would-be client and accepted $1000 to prepare a legal malpractice suit against another lawyer. Neely has since returned only $500 of the fee. The referee also found that Neely filed a complaint in circuit court on behalf of a corporation and represented that corporation in a legal capacity for nearly two months. The record contains both documentary exhibits and testimony of witnesses that support these findings. We approve the referee’s findings of fact.
The referee made the following recommendations as to guilt and discipline:
Recommendations as to Whether or Not the Respondent Should be Found Guilty: As to Supreme Court Case No. 84,646, I recommend that the respondent should be found guilty of the unauthorized practice of law after being disbarred by the Supreme Court of Florida.
As to Supreme Court Case No. 85,121, I recommend that the respondent should be found guilty of the unauthorized practice of law after being disbarred by the Supreme Court of Florida.
Recommendation as [to] Sanctions: The referee recommends that the respondent be permanently disbarred: that he be required to pay all the costs of this proceeding in regard to the above referenced case number; that he pay restitution of $500.00 to Mrs. Veronica Cottle within thirty (30) days of the final court order of the Supreme Court of Florida; and that he be specifically ordered to no longer practice law, directly or indirectly, in the state of Florida. Finally, the referee recommends that the order imposing permanent disbarment provide for respondent’s incarceration or payment of a fine or both should respondent violate such order. We find that the recommendations of guilt are adequately supported in the record and that the recommended discipline is appropriate for violating this Court’s disbarment order, particularly in light of Neely’s prior disciplinary record. See Florida Bar v. Neely, 587 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1991); Florida Bar v. Neely, 540 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1989); Florida Bar v. Neely, 502 So. 2d 1237 (Fla.1987); Florida Bar v. Neely, 488 So. 2d 535 (Fla.1986); Florida Bar v. Neely, 417 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1982); Florida Bar v. Neely, 372 So. 2d 89 (Fla.1979).
We hereby disbar Gary H. Neely permanently from the practice of law in Florida. We order Neely to return within thirty days of the filing of this opinion the remaining $500 he accepted from Veronica Cottle. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,564.73 is entered in favor of The Florida Bar against Neely, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Shoureas, 913 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2005)…a.1998) (applying traditional standard of ‘ review to referee's findings and recommendations in a contempt case); Fla. Bar v. McAtee, 674 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1996) (same). . See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Weisser, 721 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1998); Fla. Bar v. Neely, 675 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1996); Fla. Bar v. Brown, 635 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1994); Fla. Bar v. Greene, 589 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1991); Fla. Bar v. Bauman, 558 So. 2d 994 (Fla.1990); Fla. Bar v. Winter, 549 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1989). . The cases cited by the Bar to support disbarment…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Forrester, 916 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2005)…red, or permitted to resign reveals that disbarment is most often the chosen sanction. See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Weisser, 721 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1998) (disbarring attorney for continuing to practice law after disciplinary resignation); Fla. Bar v. Neely, 675 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1996) (permanently disbarring already disbarred attorney for continuing to practice law after he was disbarred); Fla. Bar v. Brown, 635 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1994) (holding in contempt and disbarring attorney for continuing to practice law after disci…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Alec Joseph Ross, 732 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1998)…erally appropriate in cases involving prior discipline”).6 This Court has consistently [*1042] imposed additional discipline upon already-disciplined attorneys for violating the terms of existing disciplinary orders. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Neely, 675 So. 2d 592, 593 (Fla.1996) (permanently disbarring already disbarred attorney for “violating this Court’s disbarment order” by continuing to practice law after he was disbarred); Florida Bar v. Hawkins, 643 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1994) (holding in contempt and…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 502 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1987)
- THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 372 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1979)
- THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 417 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1982)
- The Florida BAR v. Neely, 587 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1991)
- THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 540 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Mott, 488 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Neely, 488 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1986)