THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
MONTE K. RASSNER, 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 disciplinary action against attorney Monte K. Rassner, finding him guilty of violating professional conduct rules but deeming the recommended three-year suspension excessive. The court reduced the suspension to six months and added a condition for reinstatement.
The Court held that the recommended three-year suspension was too severe and substituted its own judgment, imposing a six-month suspension with a condition for reinstatement.
“We find, as did the Board of Governors, that the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule, and Canon 11, 31 F.S.A.”
Establishes the court's agreement with the finding of guilt for professional misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe respondent, Monte K. Rassner, was found guilty by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar for violating Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule an…
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
Arguments were heard in this case oh January 8, 1964. The record and judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar have been examined by this Court. We find, as did the Board of Governors, that the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule, and Canon 11, 31 F.S.A.
We have decided, however, that the suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years, recommended by the Board of Governors, is too severe under all the facts and circumstances. Consequently we substitute our judgment in place of the order of suspension of the Board of Governors. It is accordingly
Ordered and adjudged that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of six months and that he pay the costs of proceedings in the amount of Three Hundred Thirty-Two Dollars and sixty-nine cents ($332.69).
It is further ordered that he remain suspended at the expiration of the six-months’ period until he has satisfactorily demonstrated that he is entitled to reinstatement.
It is so ordered.
*2DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur.
THORNAL, CALDWELL and O’CON-NELL, JJ., dissent in part.
(dissenting in part).
I think the respondent should be suspended for at least one year and thereafter until he pays the costs and establishes his entitlement to re-instatement. In addition to the misprisions here established, this record reveals that the respondent had numerous other brushes with the grievance committee. It is time that he learns that the law is something other than a commercial enterprise.
CALDWELL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
THORNAL, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I think the respondent should be suspended for at least one year and thereafter until he pays the costs and establishes his entitlement to re-instatement. In addition to the misprisions here established, this record reveals that the respondent had numerous other brushes with the grievance committee. It is time that he learns that the law is something other than a commercial enterprise.
CALDWELL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Rassner, 172 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1965)…ce of law in Florida and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $909.51 is approved and the same is adopted as the judgment of this Court. It is so ordered. DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur. . 161 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1964).…
-
In re Rassner, 265 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1972)…by The Bar because of the judgment of permanent disbarment. Previously, Rassner had been suspended for six months and thereafter “until he has satisfactorily demonstrated that he is entitled to reinstatement.” The Florida Bar v. Rassner, Fla.1964, 161 So. 2d 1. At that time, too, he had been found guilty of improper handling of trust funds. Since the time of his disbarment Petitioner has been employed by the Dade County Board of Public Instruction as a teacher. He has a large number of debts, all of whic…1 / 2
-
In re THE Fla. BAR. In re Monte K. Rassner, 301 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1974)…lt to dissent, but the duty I owe to the public to protect them from the possible recurrence of this man’s former misconduct requires me reluctantly to do so. His disbarment should be continued. DEKLE, J., concurs in part. OVERTON, J., concurs. . 161 So. 2d 1. . 172 So. 2d 818. .Id. at 819.…