THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
CHARLES R. ASHMANN, 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 suspended an attorney from practicing law following his conviction of three felonies. The Court returned the case to the Board of Governors to determine whether to reaffirm its prior recommendation for resignation or pursue further disciplinary action.
Yes, the attorney is suspended from the practice of law. The case is returned to the Board of Governors to decide whether to reaffirm its prior recommendation for resignation or to pursue disciplinary action based on the recent convictions.
“In view of Ashmann's plea of guilty to and conviction of three felonies on 24 June 1964 and his sentence to three years in the State Prison and no ensuing application for relief under Integration Rule 11.08 (2) (a), 31 F.S.A., Ashmann is hereby suspended from the practice of law under Rule 11.08(2).”
Establishes the immediate suspension of the attorney due to felony convictions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent attorney, Charles R. Ashmann, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of three felonies on June 24, 1964. He was sentenced to three years in st…
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
In view of Ashmann’s plea of guilty to and conviction of three felonies on 24 June 1964 and his sentence to three years in the State Prison and no ensuing application for relief under Integration Rule 11.08 (2) (a), 31 F.S.A., Ashmann is hereby suspended from the practice of law under Rule 11.08(2).
Inasmuch as the fact of said convictions was not before the Board of Governors when it recommended that Ashmann be permitted to resign, the file is returned to the Board with directions to advise the Court promptly whether it desires to reaffirm its recommendation regarding Ash-mann’s request to be permitted to resign or whether it desires to proceed with appropriate disciplinary action in the light of events subsequent to its judgment under date of March 31, 1964.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, THORN-AL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., dissents.
(dissenting).
I regret I cannot agree. I think Ash-mann’s resignation effective 1 August 1964, as he petitioned, should be accepted and "finis” written to his sordid career.
[*141] THOMAS, Justice
(dissenting).
I regret I cannot agree. I think Ash-mann’s resignation effective 1 August 1964, as he petitioned, should be accepted and "finis” written to his sordid career.