THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ROBERT PAUL JORDAN, II, 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 upheld disciplinary charges against attorney Robert P. Jordan, II for ethical violations including failure to keep clients informed, failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries, and failure to act with reasonable diligence. The court imposed a one-month suspension from the practice of law and assessed costs of $1,900.54.
Jordan is guilty of violating rules 4-1.4(a), 4-8.4(g), and 4-1.3 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. A one-month suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate sanction, given Jordan's prior disciplinary history involving similar client neglect. Costs of $1,900.54 are assessed against Jordan.
[1] An attorney violates rule 4-1.4(a) by failing to keep a client informed as to the status of their representation.
[2] An attorney violates rule 4-8.4(g) by failing to respond to a disciplinary agency's inquiry concerning the attorney's conduct.
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“suspension is especially appropriate where, as here, there is a history of prior misconduct involving the same type of client neglect”
Justifies the one-month suspension penalty by reference to Jordan's prior disciplinary history
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJordan represented two different clients and failed to keep them informed of the status of their representation. He also failed to respond to inquirie…
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 Prior Disciplinary Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee’s report regarding alleged ethical breaches by Robert P. Jordan, II. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Jordan February 2, 1995. The complaint was submitted to a referee, and a hearing was conducted May 19, 1995. The referee’s report was filed with this Court August 2, 1995.
The referee recommended that Jordan be found guilty of violating the following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar in connection with his representation of two different clients: rule 4-1.4(a) (for failing to keep his client informed as to status of representation), rule 4r-8.4(g) (for failing to respond to disciplinary agency’s inquiry concerning attorney’s conduct), and rule 4-1.3 (for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client). In recommending a one-month suspension, the referee considered three additional factors as aggravation: Jordan’s age (forty years old), date admitted to the Bar (April 11, 1980), and prior disciplinary history (admonishment for minor misconduct and public reprimand for professional misconduct).
We have examined the record and find adequate evidence to support the referee’s recommendations as to guilt. We approve the recommended suspension, noting that suspension is especially appropriate where, as here, there is a history of prior misconduct involving the same type of client neglect. Additionally, we find the referee’s assessment of costs in the amount of $1,900.54 to be reasonable, and tax them against Jordan.
Robert P. Jordan, II, is hereby suspended from The Florida Bar for a period of one month. The suspension will be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Jordan can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If Jordan notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately. Jordan shall accept no new business from the date this opinion is published until the suspension is completed. The costs of these proceedings are taxed against Jordan and judgment is entered in the amount of $1,900.54, 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. Spear, 887 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2004)…e disciplinary proceeding. 9.22(i): substantial experience in the practice of law. C. Mitigating Factors: 9.32(a): absence of a prior disciplinary record. 9.32(d): timely good faith effort to make restitution. .See generally Fla. Bar v. Jordan, 682 So. 2d 547 (Fla.1996) (denoting the applicable rule provisions and concluding that the record evidence was “adequate” to support the recoin- [*1246] mendations as to guilt); Fla. Bar v. Barbone, 679 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.1996) (same); Fla. Bar v. Tillman, 682 So. 2…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Jordan, 682 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1996)…d by the Bar in which attorneys were suspended for one year or more are inapposite.4 We are mindful that Jordan has been involved in prior disciplinary proceedings. In addition, we are today approving a one-month suspension in Florida Bar v. Jordan, 682 So. 2d 547 (Fla.1996). The Bar was undoubtedly aware of Jordan’s prior and pending disciplinary proceedings when it made its recommendation of a ninety-one-day suspension. We find that original recommendation to be appropriate because the instant case is bette…