STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
CLARENCE BROWN, 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 reviewed a disbarment judgment against an attorney. While affirming the findings of professional misconduct, the court found the attorney suitable for rehabilitation and modified the penalty from disbarment to a suspension.
The Court affirmed the findings of misconduct but found disbarment too severe. Instead, the attorney was suspended for eighteen months and ordered to pay costs, with reinstatement contingent upon demonstrating fitness.
“We have carefully reviewed the record in this cause and hereby affirm the conclusions of the Board of Governors which sustained the findings of the referee that the respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct.”
Establishes that the court agreed with the findings of misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClarence Brown, an attorney, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar. The Board recommended d…
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 Reinstatement To Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The respondent, Clarence Brown of Miami, has petitioned this Court for appellate review of the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar. The Integration Rule, Article XI, 31 F.S.A.
By its judgment the Board of Governors disbarred the respondent and petitioned this Court to assess actual costs in the amount of $266.41 against respondent.
We have carefully reviewed the record in this cause and hereby affirm the conclusions of the Board of Governors which sustained the findings of the referee that the respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct.
However, in view of the petitioner’s unblemished record prior to his derelictions in 1955, the fact that he made restitution to all of the complaining witnesses and his present contrite attitude, we are of the opinion that the respondent represents suitable material for possible future rehabilitation.
Therefore, in keeping with the precepts enunciated by this Court in the case of State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Dawson, Fla. 1959, 111 So.2d 427, it is the conclusion of this Court that the judgment of disbarment is not approved. In lieu thereof the respondent, Clarence Brown of Miami, shall be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months from the filing of this opinion and continuously thereafter until he shall have paid the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $266.41, and further thereafter until, in accord with Article XI, subd. 5(i) of the Integration Rule, he shall demonstrate to the Board of Governors and this Court that he is entitled to be reinstated in the practice of law upon making a showing required by the last cited rule. Respondent shall not be entitled to apply for reinstatement until at least eighteen months from the filing of this opinion. Until reinstated by order of this Court the respondent shall not directly or indirectly engage in the practice of law.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Ruskin, 126 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1961)…propriated funds. Stalnaker v. State, 102 Fla. 638, 136 So. 318; In re Petition of Stalnaker, 150 Fla. 853, 9 So. 2d 100; See also, State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Rhynard, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 417; State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Brown, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 668. In prescribing the judgment hereafter announced we take into consideration that our order should give due regard to the public interest in such matters and should be fair to the accused attorney. It should not reflect a retributive penalty. Its ob…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. The Fla. BAR v. Dawson, 111 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1959)