THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
MAURICE WAGNER, 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 held that the delay in prosecuting disciplinary charges was unwarranted and reserved ruling on the motion to dismiss pending the Bar's action.
The Florida Bar sought to bring disciplinary charges against a respondent for alleged irregularities dating back to 1956, but no complaint had been fi…
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 Duty Of Diligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is here on motion to dismiss the charges against the respondent pending before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar upon the ground, intei alia,, of inordinate delay.
We gather from the voluminous file and the several arguments touching various facets of the matter that the Bar contemplates charging respondent with certain irregularities extending over the years back to 1956. No complaint has been filed.
Recognizing full well the difficulties, which confront the Bar in the timely disposition of disciplinary matters we, nevertheless, feel obliged to hold the delay in this, cause is unwarranted.
Although the respondent has, in-this respect, not been without fault, the Bar, admittedly, has procrastinated. We think it necessary, from both public and professional standpoints, that such cases be promptly dispatched and, further, that the responsibility for diligence must rest with the Bar.
In view of the Bar’s request that it be permitted to proceed in this cause we reserve, for the present, our ruling upon the motion to dismiss. In the meanwhile the Bar, if it be so advised, may, within fifteen. (IS) days, file its complaint and, within ninety (90) days, submit its judgment herein. Whereupon, in the light of the record, this Court will consider the merits of the cause and determine whether, by reason of the delay, the rights of the respondent have been prejudiced.
It is so ordered
THORNAL, 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. Randolph, 238 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1970)…g incidents which the accused lawyer suffers from unjust delays, might well supplant more formal judgments as- a form of discipline. This is so even though the record shows that the conduct of the lawyer merits discipline. The Florida Bar v. Wagner, 197 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1967). In the instant matter it has now been seven years since the disciplinary processes were set in motion. It is over ten years since some of the alleged misconduct has occurred. Many letters from highly reputable judges and lawyers have be…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1968)
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Wagner, 175 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1965)