THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
ARTHUR A. CARLSON, 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 Bar petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to hold suspended attorney Arthur A. Carlson in contempt for practicing law during his suspension by accepting a divorce case, collecting a fee, and failing to refund promised funds. The Court found Carlson guilty of contempt and imposed a 30-day jail sentence with restitution requirements.
Carlson is guilty of contempt for practicing law during his suspension, accepting fees for legal services, and failing to refund client funds as promised. The Court sentenced him to 30 days in jail, ordered restitution to the client, and imposed costs of the proceedings.
“This cause originated upon petition of The Florida Bar praying an order be directed to the respondent, Arthur A. Carlson, requiring him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for practicing law in August of 1963, during the period of his suspension by this Court's order of June 21, 1963.”
Establishes the nature of the proceeding and the core allegation that Carlson practiced law while suspended.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlson was suspended from practicing law by court order on June 21, 1963. In August 1964, while suspended, he was retained by Alberta Allison to inst…
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 Practicing Law While Suspended cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause originated upon petition of The Florida Bar praying an order be directed to the respondent, Arthur A. Carlson, requiring him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for practicing law in August of 1963, during the period of his suspension by this Court’s order of June 21, 1963.1
The petition alleges that on August 12, 1964, while suspended from the practice of law as aforesaid, the respondent was retained as the attorney of one Alberta Allison and agreed to institute a divorce proceeding on her behalf; that on the following day respondent received an attorney’s fee of $175.00 from his client and gave her his receipt therefor; that thereafter respondent was advised by his client to abandon the litigation and he agreed to refund $100.00 to his client; that respondent has not refunded any portion of said fee.
This Court by its order dated November 30, 1964, issued rule to the respondent requiring him to show cause before this Court at 10:00 A.M. December 21, 1964, why he should not be held in contempt. Respondent did not appear as ordered and has not responded in any manner to the petition nor to the order of this Court.
Therefore, on the basis of the record before us, including the petition and various exhibits attached thereto, the Court finds respondent guilty of contempt as alleged. It is the order, judgment and sentence of the Court that Arthur A. Carlson be confined in the jail of Dade County, Florida, for a period of thirty (30) days, make restitution to the aforesaid client, Alberta Allison, and pay the costs of these proceedings.
It is further ordered that the Marshal of this Court, under the provisions of § 4 (4), Art. V, of the Constitution, F.S.A., cause this order to be executed by the Sheriff or Sheriff’s deputies of Dade County, Florida.
Done and Ordered in Tallahassee, Florida, this 3rd day of March, A.D. 1965.
DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Carlson, 183 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1966)…ded. State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Carlson, 128 So. 2d 385 and 154 So. 2d 689. On two occasions he has been convicted of contempt of this court for practicing law during periods of suspension. The Florida [*542] Bar v. Carlson, 164 So. 2d 813 and 172 So. 2d 578. The record in this cause amply ■supports the findings and recommendations •of the referees and the judgment of the hoard. Judgment of permanent disbarment is warranted only where the conduct of a respondent indicates that he is beyond redemption.…
Authorities Cited
- The Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Calvo, 164 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1964)
- State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Carlson, 128 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1961)