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 upheld the permanent disbarment of attorney Monte K. Rassner for commingling client trust funds with his personal funds and misappropriating trust money for private purposes. The decision affirmed the Board of Governors' finding that Rassner violated multiple ethical rules and showed no genuine commitment to ethical practice despite a prior six-month suspension.
The Court affirmed the permanent disbarment of Rassner from the practice of law in Florida and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings in the amount of $909.51.
“A cursory examination of the facts in this case clearly reveals that this man was simply using any money he could get his hands on for personal and private use and yet, at the time of the hearing before the referee, this man was as devious and evasive as any witness the Referee has ever experienced.”
The referee's characterization of Rassner's pattern of misappropriation and his evasive conduct at the disciplinary hearing, establishing the severity of the misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRassner was charged with commingling funds received on behalf of a client with other trust funds and his personal funds, and with withdrawing trust fu…
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 Misuse Of Trust Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on the petition of Monte K. Rassner, respondent, to review the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar that he be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Florida and pay the cost of the proceedings in the amount of $909.51.
The complaint against respondent charged he was guilty of commingling funds received on behalf of a client with other trust funds and with his personal funds and that he withdrew funds from the trust fund and used them for his private purpose.
. The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty as charged in the complaint and, more particularly, that he be found guilty of violating Article XI, Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule, 31 F.S.A., Canon XI of the Canons of Ethics and Rule 1 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida, 31 F.S.A. The referee, recommending that respondent be disbarred, stated:
“A cursory examination of the facts in this case clearly reveals that this man was simply using any money he could get his hands on for personal and private use and yet, at the time of the hearing before the referee, this man was as devious and evasive as any witness the Referee has ever experienced. It is the undersigned’s reluctant, carefully considered opinion that despite the prior suspension by the Supreme Court of Florida that before the Referee the Respondent did not reflect a sincere desire to become an ethical practitioner but, to the contrary, completely ignored the sanctity of the oath of a witness and the dignity of The Florida Bar.”
Respondent was previously suspended for six (6) months by Order of this Court dated February 19, 1964.1
The record and the report of the referee and the judgment of the Board of Governors have been examined by this Court. It is ordered that the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, dated December 1, 1964, that the respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Mattingly, 342 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1977)…isbarment. The latest pronouncement of this Court regarding the matter of permanent disbarment occurred in The Florida Bar and Rassner, 301 So. 2d 451 (Fla.1974). In that case a lawyer was “permanently disbarred” in 1965. The Florida Bar v. Rassner, 172 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1965). In 1972 Rassner, the “permanently disbarred” lawyer, petitioned for reinstatement a short time after Florida Integration Rule 11.11 had been revised to its present form. The notion that a lawyer could be permanently disbarred, without th…
-
In re Rassner, 265 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1972)…member of The Florida Bar, petitions this Court for reinstatement. He was a member of The Florida Bar from March, 1952 until March 17, 1965, when he was permanently disbarred by this Court for commingling funds. The Florida Bar v. Rassner, Fla.1965, 172 So. 2d 818. At that time other disciplinary proceedings were pending against him; however, they were not prosecuted by The Bar because of the judgment of permanent disbarment. Previously, Rassner had been suspended for six months and thereafter “until he has…1 / 2
-
In re THE Fla. BAR. In re Monte K. Rassner, 301 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1974)…ut 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.…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Rassner, 161 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1964)