THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOSEPH SCOTT LANFORD, 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 Court held that the Florida Bar failed to meet its burden of showing the referee's finding of not guilty was clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record.
The Florida Bar filed a complaint alleging attorney Joseph Scott Lanford violated a rule regarding dishonesty in a client billing matter. A referee co…
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 Attorney Discipline cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the referee’s report and recommendation that Joseph Scott Lan-ford be found not guilty of charges alleged in The Florida Bar’s complaint against him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.
The Bar’s complaint alleges that Lanford violated Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) regarding a client billing matter. After conducting a formal hearing, the referee recommended that Lanford be found not guilty and that no disciplinary measures be applied. The referee also recommended that the parties bear their own costs.
The Bar petitioned this Court for review of the referee’s report, arguing that the referee reached an incorrect conclusion as to Lan-ford’s guilt and that the referee’s recommendation as to discipline is unjustified.
In order to find that an attorney acted with dishonesty, misrepresentation, de ceit, or fraud, the Bar must show the necessary element of intent. Florida Bar v. Neu, 597 So. 2d 266, 268 (Fla.1992). An attorney’s lack of intent to defraud or deceive a client supports a referee’s finding that the attorney’s conduct did not constitute dishonesty, misrepresentation, deceit or fraud. Id. Thus, the Bar, as the party seeking to overturn the referee’s finding on this point, has the burden of showing that the finding is clearly erroneous or not supported by the record. Id.
The Bar has not carried that burden in the instant case. The record supports the referee’s conclusion that Lanford be found not guilty of violating rule 4-8.4(c). Thus, we deny the Bar’s petition for review and approve the referee’s report. As recommended by the referee, each party shall bear its own costs in this proceeding.
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. Fredericks, 731 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1999)…prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. “In order to find that an attorney acted with dishonesty, misrepresentation, deceit, or fraud, the Bar must show the necessary element of intent.” Florida Bar v. Lanford, 691 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 1997); see also Florida Bar v. Cramer, 643 So. 2d 1069, 1070 (Fla. 1994); Florida Bar v. Neu, 597 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1992). Freder-icks argues that the referee failed to find the required element of intent and therefore erred in finding him…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Barley, 831 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2002)…hat “ ‘[i]n order to find that an attorney acted with dishonesty, misrepresentation, deceit, or fraud, the Bar must show the necessary element of intent.’ ” Florida Bar v. Fredericks, 731 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla.1999) (quoting Florida Bar v. Lanford, 691 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla.1997)). The element of intent is proven by establishing that the conduct was deliberate or knowing. Id. In the instant case, Barley insisted that the $76,760.68 remain in the trust account to ensure that Slab’s attorney would abstain from…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Mogil, 763 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2000)…w the necessary element of intent,’ ” and that “in order to satisfy the element of intent it must only be shown that the conduct was deliberate or knowing.” Florida Bar v. Fredericks, 731 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla.1999) (quoting Florida Bar v. Lanford, 691 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla.1997)).1 Mogil urges that the [*310] Bar failed to make such a showing, and that this Court therefore should reject the referee’s recommendation as to guilt in this regard. We again disagree. The New York disbarment order specifically fou…
Previewing 3 of 10 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. NEU, 597 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1992)