THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
E. WARD HARRIS, 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 affirmed the Florida Bar's judgment against an attorney, placing him on probation for two years and ordering him to pay costs, based on his agreement with the findings and recommendation.
The court affirmed the judgment of The Florida Bar, placing the respondent on probation for two years and ordering him to pay the costs of the proceedings.
“It appears that the respondent was found guilty by the Board of Governors of conduct which brought him discredit and notoriety to the community and amounted to violation of Article XI of the Integration Rule, Rule 11.02(3) (a)(b) and Rule No. 30 of the additional rules governing conduct of attorneys in Florida, 31 F.S.A.”
This quote establishes the basis for the disciplinary action against the respondent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe respondent attorney was found guilty by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar for conduct that brought discredit and notoriety to the communit…
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 Violation Of Integration Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be finally heard by the court upon the record and judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar.
It appears that the respondent was found guilty by the Board of Governors of conduct which brought him discredit and notoriety to the community and amounted to violation of Article XI of the Integration Rule, Rule 11.02(3) (a)(b) and Rule No. 30 of the additional rules governing conduct of attorneys in Florida, 31 F.S.A.
The respondent represents to this court that he has been notified of the above findings and recommendations and that he does not wish to file any other pleadings in the cause or make any other requests; furthermore, that he does not have any statement to make in mitigation of the judgment and findings of the Board of Governors and agrees that this court enter the judgment which the Board of Governors has recommended to the court.
It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of The Florida Bar be confirmed and that the respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years and further that he pay the cost of these proceedings in the amount of $348.00.
ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995)…surance statutes. See Grant v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 638 So. 2d 936 (Fla.1994); Southeast Title & Ins. Co. v. Austin, 202 So. 2d 179, 180 (Fla.1967); Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Gavin, 184 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. dismissed, 196 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1967). This principle, in conjunction with my analysis above, leads to the conclusion that all policies issued after the effective date of the 1990 amendment to section 624.155 should conform with that statute as well as its proper legislative…
-
Foy Baxter and Annie Smith Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 317 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1975)…5 (Fla. 1969). . Harmon v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 232 So. 2d 206 (Fla.App.2d 1970); Continental Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 233 So. 2d 195 (Fla.App.3d 1970); Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Gavin, 184 So. 2d 229 (Fla.App. 1st 1966), cert. dism’d, 196 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1967); Davis v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 172 So. 2d 485 (Fla.App.lst 1965); Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229, 234 (Fla.1971) ; Chandler v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 342 F. 2d 420 (CA 5, 1965) (applying Flori…
-
Allison v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co., 222 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…r under the policy for damages he or she would have been able to recover if the offending motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance. Standard Accident Insurance Company v. Gavin, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 229 (cert. dismissed, Fla.1967, 196 So. 2d 440). To interpret the policy in question and resolve the ultimate issue, we will first consider the coverage provided by the policy, next the policy definition of the term “insured”, and finally the effect of any express exclusions. Regarding coverage…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence