THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JAMES A. DODD, 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 reviewed a disciplinary proceeding against attorney James A. Dodd following a recommendation for permanent disbarring. The Court found Dodd guilty of multiple ethical violations including solicitation of employment and conflicts of interest, but imposed disbarment rather than permanent disbarring, citing the severity of permanent disbarring and Dodd's prior disciplinary history.
The Court found Dodd guilty of all charged violations but rejected permanent disbarring as the appropriate sanction. Instead, the Court imposed disbarring (indefinite suspension) rather than permanent disbarring, holding that permanent disbarring is an extreme sanction seldom warranted, particularly given the prior reinstatement.
“It is our conclusion the respondent is guilty as charged.”
The Court affirms the Referee's finding of guilt on all ethical violations charged.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDodd solicited professional employment from several individuals without proper authorization. While retained by a wife in a divorce action, he solicit…
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 here on petition of James A. Dodd, respondent, to review the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar that he be permanently disbarred and pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $1,057.90.
The Referee, in his report, recommended:
“It is recommended that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the Complaint, and that he be found guilty of violation of Article XI, Rule 11.02 of the Integration Rule; Canon 27 and 28 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; and Rule 1, 19, 27 and 30 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida [31 F.S.A.].”
The Referee found the respondent solicited professional employment from several individuals; that while retained by a wife, in a divorce action, solicited the husband and did represent his interests; that he made untrue representations and solicited professional employment in connection with other matters.
The Referee recommended the respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida.
We have examined the record with care. It is our conclusion the respondent is guilty as charged. It appearing the respondent was previously disbarred 1 and reinstated in 19632, we find the repetition of misconduct to merit disbarment. It is our view, however, that “permanent disbarment” is so extreme in nature as seldom to be warranted and, in that sense, we disagree with the judgment of the Board.
*205Accordingly it is the judgment of this Court that the respondent, James A. Dodd, be disbarred and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $1,057.-90.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Ruskin, 232 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)…if he should subsequently seek reinstatement. Compare Florida Bar v. Penny (Fla.), 164 So. 2d 5. .Compare: 1. The Florida Bar v. Sherr (Fla.), 179 So. 2d 337 (and particularly the special comments of Caldwell, J.). 2.The Florida Bar v. Dodd (Fla.), 195 So. 2d 204. 3. The Florida Bar v. Burton (Fla.), 218 So. 2d 748. 4. The Florida Bar v. Hefty, (Fla.) 220 So. 2d 368.…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Blessing, 440 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1983)…ent in the amount of $2,262.30. It is so ordered. ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and SHAW, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. * The Florida Bar v. Davis, 361 So. 2d 159 (Fla.1978); The Florida Bar v. Dodd, 195 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1967); The Florida Bar v. Carlson, 183 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1966); The Florida Bar v. King, 174 So. 2d 398 (Fla.1965); State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Dunham, 134 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1961); State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Ruskin, 126 So. 2d 142 (Fla.19…
Authorities Cited
- Dodd v. THE Florida BAR, 118 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1960)
- Carol City Utils., Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 152 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1963)
- In re Application for Reinstatement In the Florida Bar of James A. Dodd, 152 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1963)