THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ROYCE DERRELL PIPKINS, 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 found attorney Royce Derrell Pipkins in contempt of court for violating trust account rules and probation conditions imposed in a prior disciplinary action. The Court suspended Pipkins for ninety days and assessed costs, rejecting both the referee's recommendation for costs only and the Bar's request for a longer suspension with rehabilitation requirements.
Pipkins violated Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.15(a) and 3-6.1(c) through his trust account misconduct while under court-imposed suspension and probation. The Court imposed a ninety-day suspension (rather than costs only or the Bar's proposed ninety-one day suspension with rehabilitation requirements) as appropriately severe discipline given the prior similar misconduct.
[1] An attorney commits commingling of funds by utilizing a trust account to collect previously earned fees, which should be placed in an office account.
[2] An attorney violates rules governing trust accounts by using a trust account to transact business on behalf of a corporation that does not maintain its own bank account.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Pipkins committed the trust account violations at issue while serving a sixty-day suspension and eighteen-month probation for similar misconduct, and we therefore find that a ninety-day suspension is appropriate.”
Establishes the Court's rationale for imposing ninety-day suspension based on repetition of similar misconduct during an existing disciplinary period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1995, Pipkins was suspended for sixty days and placed on eighteen-month probation, with conditions requiring compliance with trust account …
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 Trust Account Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the referee’s report regarding alleged ethical breaches by Royce Derrell Pipkins. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
On January 12,1995, this Court suspended Pipkins from the practice of law for sixty days and placed him on probation for eighteen months. See Florida Bar v. Pipkins, 647 So. 2d 846, 847 (Fla.1995).
The suspension became effective thirty days from the filing of our opinion on January 12,1995, and the terms of probation required, among other things, that Pipkins follow all rules relating to trust accounts. See id. Subsequently, the Bar petitioned this Court to issue an order to show cause as to why Pipkins should not be held in contempt of this Court for (1) receiving and disbursing funds from his trust account during his suspension period; and (2) accepting new business after the filing of our opinion in Pipkins’ case. We issued an order to show cause, and a hearing was held before a referee on March 25, 1997.
The referee found that Pipkins utilized his trust account “in direct contradiction” of this Court’s January 12,1995 order. Specifically, the referee found that Pipkins admitted to (1) utilizing his trust account to collect previously earned fees from clients, which properly should have been placed in an office account, resulting in a commingling of client and personal funds; and (2) utilizing his trust account to transact business on behalf of a corporate client for which he served as See-retary/Treasurer, as the corporation did not maintain its own bank account. Also, the referee found that Pipkins had not accepted any new business after January 12, 1995. Based on these findings, the referee recommended that Pipkins be found in contempt of this Court for violating Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.15(a) (prohibiting commingling of personal and client funds) and 3-6.1(c) (prohibiting suspended attorney from receiving, disbursing, or otherwise handling trust funds).
As a disciplinary measure, the referee recommended that Pipkins be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings. The referee found no further discipline necessary because Pipkins “was placed on probation for 18 months and it does not appear [that] any other violations occurred during his probationary period.” The Bar agrees with the referee’s findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt, but argues that in addition to being taxed costs, Pipkins should be suspended for ninety-one days with required proof of rehabilitation before he may resume practicing law.1
We approve the referee’s findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt because they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Glick, 693 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla.1997); Florida Bar v. Benchimol, 681 So. 2d 663, 665 (Fla.1996).
However, we disagree with the referee’s disciplinary recommendation and reject the Bar’s assertion that a ninety-one day suspension, with required proof of rehabilitation, is appropriate here. Pipkins committed the trust account violations at issue while serving a sixty-day suspension and eighteen-month probation for similar misconduct, and we therefore find that a ninety-day suspension is appropriate. See Florida Bar v. Mitchell, 645 So. 2d 414, 415 (Fla.1994) (suspending attorney ninety days for trust account violations where prior disciplinary record involved similar misconduct); Florida Bar v. Nesbitt, 626 So. 2d 190, 191-92 (Fla.1993) (imposing ninety-day suspension for various trust account violations); Florida Bar v. Miller, 648 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla.1989) (same); Florida Bar v. Greene, 485 So. 2d 1279, 1279 (Fla.1986) (suspending attorney ninety days for failing to observe conditions of one-year supervised probation).
Such discipline is fair to society, fair to Pipkins, and severe enough to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Charnock, 661 So. 2d 1207, 1210 (Fla.1995).
Accordingly, we find Royce Derrell Pipkins in contempt of this Court and hereby suspend him from the practice of law for a period of ninety days. The suspension will take effect thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Pipkins can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If Pipkins notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer practicing law and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately. Pipkins shall accept no business from the date this opinion is published until the suspension is completed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-5.1(g), upon receipt of this order of suspension, Pipkins shall forthwith furnish a copy of the order to all his clients with matters pending in his practice.
Furthermore, within thirty days after receipt of this order, Pipkins shall furnish staff counsel of the Bar with a sworn affidavit listing the names and addresses of all client who have been furnished copies of the order. Judgment is entered against Pipkins for costs in the amount of $1,789.84, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and PARIENTE, JJ„ concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
. Pipkins urges this Court to approve the referee’s report.
ANSTEAD, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would follow the referee’s recommendations in full.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Shoureas, 913 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2005)…ent him, met with her in her office, and paid her; Shoureas rebutted this); Count XII (alleging that during thé suspension period client Kamin met with Shoureas and paid her to represent her; Shoureas rebutted this). . See also Fla. Bar v. Pipkins, 708 So. 2d 953 (Fla.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. Nee…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Taryn Xenia Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1999)…... We caution Liroff that the unexcused failure to fulfill [conditions of his suspension] will constitute a further contempt of this Court justifying more serious discipline. Id. (emphasis supplied). Temmer also relies on Florida Bar v. Pipkins, 708 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1998), in which this Court rejected the referee’s recommended ninety-one-day suspension and instead suspended an attorney for ninety days for committing several trust account violations while serving a sixty-day suspension and an eighteen-month…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Domenic Leonard Grosso, 760 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2000)…recommendation, we disagree with the referee’s recommendation of a fifteen-day suspension and reject the Bar’s assertion that a ninety-one day suspension, with required proof of rehabilitation, is appropriate here. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Pipkins, 708 So. 2d 953, 955 (Fla.1998). The Bar argues that a fifteen-day suspension is inconsistent with the referee’s own findings and cases cited in the referee’s report. The Bar notes that this Court imposed a six-month suspension in Weiss for an attorney’s negligent…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 485 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1986)
- The Florida BAR v. Glick, 693 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1997)
- THE Florida BAR v. Benchimol, 681 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1996)
- THE Florida BAR v. Charnock, 661 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1995)
- THE Florida BAR v. Marzell Mitchell, Jr., 645 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1994)
- THE Florida BAR v. Nesbitt, 626 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1993)
- T.M. v. State, 647 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1995)