THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
S. J. KENNETH ROGERS, 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 Court approves and adopts the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, disbarring the respondent.
The respondent was charged with two counts of embezzlement of trust funds and admitted guilt. The referee found him guilty and recommended disbarment,…
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 Disbarment cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court for review of the judgment entered by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar on October 4, 1966.
Said judgment reads in part:
“The complaint charged respondent with two counts of embezzlement of trust funds. The respondent has admitted his guilt of said charges. The referee found respondent guilty of said charges. The referee found respondent guilty as charged and recommended disbarment. This Board finds no mitigating circumstances and no attempt by respondent to make restitution to his clients. It concurs in the findings and recommendations of its referee. Accordingly, it is
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the respondent, S. J. Kenneth Rogers, be disbarred and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $223.-10.”
No request for hearing before us has been submitted by Respondent.
The record and judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar have been examined by this Court. It is ordered that the judgment of said Board that Respondent S. J. Kenneth Rogers is guilty as charged and that he be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida be, and the same is approved and adopted as the judgment of this Court. Execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against Respondent.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ari Miller v. Mendez, 804 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2001)…udge’s right to a specific term accrues on the date of assuming office, we relied in part on another advisory opinion that addressed the eligibility requirement of five years membership in The Florida Bar.5 In In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 192 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla.1966), we said the bar membership eligibility requirements “refer to eligibility at the time of assuming office and not at the time of qualification or election to office.” See also Newman v. State, 602 So. 2d 1351, 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…
-
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor-Terms of Cnty. Court Judges, 750 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1999)…ice. If the date of assuming office controls, then Amendment 7 was effective at the time the judges assumed office and the commissions should be for six years. No Florida cases are directly on point. However, In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 192 So. 2d 757 (Fla.1966), provides insight regarding whether a judge’s eligibility requirements must be met on the date of election or the date that the office is assumed. The case involved a circuit judge who was elected on the same date the electorate voted in…
-
Judge Terri-Ann Miller v. Gross, 788 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…iller argues that: “the time for determining whether a judicial candidate is qualified and eligible is when the term of office actually begins. State ex rel. Fair v. Adams, 130[139] So. 2d 879 (Fla.1962), and In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 192 So. 2d 757 (Fla.1966). The requirement that the candidate make an oath at the time the ‘qualification papers’ are filed and the ‘qualifying fee’ is paid that he or she is qualified and eligible under the Florida Constitution and laws to hold office for which h…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence