THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
FRED M. PENNY, 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 an attorney, Fred M. Penny. While upholding findings of professional misconduct, the court overturned the Board of Governors' judgment of permanent disbarment, finding it too severe and suggesting the possibility of rehabilitation.
The court held that permanent disbarment was too severe and that the respondent should be afforded an opportunity for rehabilitation. The judgment of permanent disbarment was not approved.
“Our study of the record leads us to conclude that respondent is not beyond rehabilitation.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for overturning the permanent disbarment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Fred M. Penny was found guilty of various acts of professional misconduct. A referee recommended a five-year suspension from the practice o…
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 Permanent Disbarment cases and more on FLexlaw
For various acts of professional misconduct a referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. The Board of Governors approved the findings of guilty but entered a judgment of permanent disbarment. Under Integration Rule 11.10, 31 F.S.A., this judgment would prevent the respondent from ever being reinstated to membership in The Florida Bar. Implicit in such a conclusion is a finding that the respondent has demonstrated that it is unlikely that he can rehabilitate himself sufficiently to return to the profession as an honorable member. Our study of the record leads us to conclude that respondent is not beyond rehabilitation. We feel that the door should be left ajar at least to afford him an opportunity to accomplish this desirable objective. The judgment of permanent disbarment is not approved. However, the findings of guilt are approved and the respondent, Fred M. Penny, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Florida. Integration Rule 11.07(5). He is further ordered to pay the costs in the amount of $422.40 as assessed by the Board of Governors.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, TPIORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Rassner, 265 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1972)…Ephesians 1:7; Romans 2:7. . Psalms 49:7 — “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him . The Florida Bar v. Carlson, 183 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1966). The principle is also recognized in The Florida Bar v. Penny, 164 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1964). Permanency has likewise been recognized upon “resignation without leave for reinstatement” in In re Joel, 160 So. 2d 110 (Fla.1964); The Florida Bar v. Ashmann, 167 So. 2d 864 (Fla.1964); In re Grant, 139 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1962); and In r…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Ruskin, 232 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)…ent.1 In any event, the record before us does not indicate Respondent has not rehabilitated himself or that it is unlikely that he can demonstrate he is rehabilitated if he should subsequently seek reinstatement. Compare Florida Bar v. Penny (Fla.), 164 So. 2d 5. .Compare: 1. The Florida Bar v. Sherr (Fla.), 179 So. 2d 337 (and particularly the special comments of Caldwell, J.). 2.The Florida Bar v. Dodd (Fla.), 195 So. 2d 204. 3. The Florida Bar v. Burton (Fla.), 218 So. 2d 748. 4. The Florida Bar v. Heft…
-
Fischler v. Reubin O'D. Askew, Jr., 349 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…consistent herewith. ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur. . It is questionable whether a permanent revocation without the right to ever apply for reinstatement is lawful. See In re Rassner, 265 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Penny, 164 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1964). . Erwin v. State Dept. of P. & O. R., etc., Board of Dentistry, 320 So. 2d 2 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).…