THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
TOM H. YOUNGBLOOD, 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 affirmed a three-month suspension of an attorney, finding no reason to interfere with the Board of Governors' decision after the attorney failed to petition for review. The court also ordered the attorney to pay costs.
The Florida Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Board of Governors' judgment, confirming the three-month suspension and ordering the attorney to pay costs.
“More than thirty days have now elapsed since the Board of Governors filed its judgment and record of the proceedings in this court. No petition for review of said judgment has been filed pursuant to Rule 11.11 (3) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 31 F.S.A.”
Establishes the procedural posture of the case before the Supreme Court, highlighting the lack of a timely appeal by the respondent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Bar filed a complaint against respondent Tom H. Youngblood for professional misconduct. A referee found Youngblood guilty and recommended …
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 Suspension From Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Complaint was filed April 20, 1962, charging respondent with professional misconduct. The referee found respondent guilty as charged and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.
The Board of Governors, upon review of the referee’s report, concurred in the finding of guilt and ordered that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.
More than thirty days have now elapsed since the Board of Governors filed its judgment and record of the proceedings in this court. No petition for review of said judgment has been filed pursuant to Rule 11.11 (3) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 31 F.S.A.
We have studied the record and concluded that there is no occasion to interfere, so the judgment of the Board is confirmed and the respondent is suspended for three months from the date this order is entered, and thereafter until he shall have paid the costs hereby taxed against him in the sum of $96.30.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…ct that the Gideon decision invalidates convictions entered prior to the time it was rendered. See also the decision of the Florida courts in Roy v. Wainwright, supra; Peterson v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 155 So. 2d 542; Alford v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 153 So. 2d 817; 156 So. 2d 1; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 566; Mitchell v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 155 So. 2d 863.…
-
Alford v. Louie L. Wainwright, 156 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1963)