THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
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 sought permanent disbarment of Arthur A. Carlson for professional misconduct across multiple client matters. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Governors' disbarment order, finding Carlson's pattern of misconduct—including accepting retainers while failing to perform services and deceiving clients—demonstrated he was beyond redemption, particularly given his prior disciplinary history.
Permanent disbarment is warranted. The court affirmed the Board's judgment of permanent disbarment, finding that Carlson's conduct demonstrated he was beyond redemption and warranted permanent removal from the practice of law.
“Judgment of permanent disbarment is warranted only where the conduct of a respondent indicates that he is beyond redemption.”
Establishes the legal standard for permanent disbarment in attorney discipline cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlson accepted a retainer from Mr. Dulin to institute bankruptcy proceedings but failed to do so, failed to return the fee, and falsely advised the …
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
This cause is before us on the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar permanently disbarring the respondent, Arthur A. Carlson, from the practice of law in this state.
The board’s judgment in this cause is unusual in that it is rendered upon the reports of two referees, each of whom heard a separate and unrelated charge of professional misconduct on the part of the respondent. One referee tried a complaint in which the respondent was charged with accepting a retainer and agreeing to institute bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of a Mr. Dulin and then failing to do so. The referee found that the respondent did accept such a retainer and agree to conduct such proceedings for the client; that he failed to act as agreed; that he failed to return the retainer fee to the client; and that respondent deceived the client in advising that the proceedings had been instituted and completed although such had not been done. This referee recommended that respondent be disbarred.
In the complaint tried by the other referee the respondent was charged with accepting a substantial retainer for handling probate proceedings of the estate of the deceased spouse of the client, Elizabeth H. Glazar, and then failing to institute such proceedings. The referee found that the respondent did accept funds from the client for prosecuting these proceedings; that he failed to act; and that he continually gave the client false reports of the progress of the non-existent probate proceedings. For this infraction the referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice for five years.
This cause is also unusual in that this is the fifth instance in which this respondent has been before this court for his professional misconduct. He has twice been suspended. 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 *542Bar 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. We think in respondent’s case this fact has been well demonstrated.
The respondent did not appear in the proceedings before the referees and he has filed no petition for review in this court. More than thirty days have elapsed since the filing in this court of the judgment of the board and the record in this cause.
After due consideration it is ordered that the judgment of the Board of Governors ■of The Florida Bar is approved and the respondent, Arthur A. Carlson, be and he is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in this state. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding in amount of $144.24, for which let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THORNAL, C. J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially).
I concur, but in concurring wish to note that the respondent did not seek review of the judgments of the Board of Governors.
THORNAL, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur, but in concurring wish to note that the respondent did not seek review of the judgments of the Board of Governors.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Merrell G. Vannier, 498 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1986)…sbarment is not warranted in this instance. Disbarment is an extreme penalty and should only be imposed in those rare cases where rehabilitation is highly improbable. The Florida Bar v. Davis, 361 So. 2d 159 (Fla.1978); The Florida Bar v. Carlson, 183 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1966). The events in question took place ten years ago when Vannier was a recent law school graduate. The fact that Vannier has had no subsequent ethical problems is convincing evidence that he has in fact been rehabilitated and is unlikely to…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Rousso, 117 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2013)…t followed.” Therefore, cases involving misappropriation are not on point. In addition, the Court has stated that “permanent disbarment is warranted [ ] where the conduct of a respondent indicates that he is beyond redemption.” Fla. Bar v. Carlson, 183 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla.1966). Here, the referee found that “Respondents have extended themselves to financial ruin in an effort to make right the wrong done by the bookkeeper. Accordingly, to the credit of the Respondents, efforts to cover client trust account l…
-
In re Rassner, 265 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1972)…o is to violate the trust which they have passed on to us. I dissent. . Colossians 1:14; 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…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Carlson, 154 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1963)
- THE Florida BAR v. Carlson, 172 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1965)