THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
HAROLD TURK, 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 the Florida Bar's Board of Governors judgment permanently disbarring attorney Harold Turk for knowingly failing to file federal income tax returns and converting $103,000 from an estate he administered. The Court modified the permanent disbarment to a three-year suspension followed by conditional reinstatement, finding no evidence that Turk was beyond redemption despite the gravity of his misconduct.
The Court reversed the permanent disbarment and instead imposed a three-year suspension from practice, after which reinstatement is conditioned upon the respondent demonstrating rehabilitation to the Board of Governors and this Court and making full restitution of misappropriated funds or obtaining satisfactory releases from entitled persons.
“disbarment is the most severe punishment which can be meted out to an attorney and * * * should be imposed only where the evidence shows that the possibility of restoration is unlikely or remote.”
Establishes the strict standard for imposing disbarment, requiring evidence that restoration is unlikely.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTurk, serving as executor of an estate, knowingly and wrongfully converted $103,000 from the estate, though he subsequently restored $30,000 to legate…
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 Harold Turk, respondent, to review the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar that he be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
The judgment of the Board of Governors which was entered on April 1, 1966, recites the findings of the appointed referee that the respondent had knowingly and willfully failed to file federal income tax returns for the years 1956 through 1960 and that he had knowingly and wrongfully converted $103,000 from an estate of which the respondent was executor, $30,000 of which had been restored by the respondent to various legatees. Though not recited in the judgment of the Board of Governors, the referee found that subsequent to 1963, the year during which respondent served as executor, his friends and family had raised some $80,000 which served as the source of the $30,000 used to satisfy all of the claims of the individual legatees, with the remainder being used to compromise certain charitable bequests.
The judgment of the Board recognized that the respondent was cooperative during these proceedings and further that most of the findings made by the referee are based upon the respondent’s admissions.
The primary question facing the Court in this matter is the nature of the penalty to be imposed upon the respondent. Under the provisions of Integration Rule 11.07(5), 32 F.S.A., disbarment is the most extreme penalty which can be imposed upon an errant member of the legal profession. Under the rule, a judgment of disbarment without qualification is to be construed to be for an indefinite period of time. In State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Dunham, Fla., 134 So.2d 1, we stated that disbarment is the most severe punishment which can be meted out to an attorney and “ * * * should be imposed only where the evidence shows that the possibility of restoration is unlikely or remote.”
More recently, in The Florida Bar v. Carlson, Fla., 183 So.2d 541, it was held that the judgment of permanent disbarment is warranted only where the conduct of a respondent indicates that he is beyond redemption. In Carlson, supra, we held that it had been well demonstrated that the respondent was beyond redemption. In the instant matter, there is no evidence tending to show that the respondent is beyond redemption or cannot or will not be rehabilitated. the gravity of the respondent’s conduct is not doubted, but that he is beyond redemption is a circumstance not shown in this record.
It is shown that the respondent has been under extensive psychiatric treatment, including hospitalization. The statements from physicians clearly indicate that he was suffering a mental disturbance. The record of this cause unmistakably reflects the respondent’s contrition, as well as his efforts *850to right the wrongs for which he is responsible.
Accordingly, it is the order of this Court that the respondent, Harold Turk, be disbarred from the practice of law for a period of three years from the date of the judgment of the Board of Governors herein, and thereafter until the respondent demonstrates to the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar and to this Court that he has rehabilitated himself pursuant to Article XI of the Integration Rule of the Florida Bar, 32 F. S.A., and has made full restitution of the monies misappropriated by him or has obtained satisfactory releases for such funds from the persons entitled thereto.
CALDWELL, C. J., THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., and SPEC-TORy District Court Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1970)…against whom The Florida Bar had recommended disbarment. For other selected cases in which this Court ordered suspension after The Florida Bar recommended disbarment, suspensions ranging from three months to three years, see The Florida Bar v. Turk, 202 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1967); The Florida Bar v. Moore, 194 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1966); State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Hathaway, 145 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1962); State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Evans, 94 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1957); State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Dawson, 111 So…
-
In re Fla. Bd. of BAR Exam'rs. In re H.H.S., 373 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1979)…Therein this Court rejected the recommendation of a one-year suspension and imposed, as appropriate discipline, a six-month suspension, with permission to apply for reinstatement after the expiration of ninety days. Even in The Florida Bar v. Turk, 202 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1967), where the attorney’s knowing and wilful failure to file for five consecutive years was combined with the knowing and wilful conversion of $103,000 of funds of an estate entrusted to him, this Court rejected the recommendation of permanen…1 / 2
-
In re THE Fla. BAR. In re Harold Turk, 307 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1975)…nt to The Florida Bar of Harold Turk, a member of The Florida Bar from December, 1938, until October 4, 1967, at which time he was disbarred for three years and until demonstration of rehabilitation. The order of disbarment by this Court reported at 202 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1967), recited: “Accordingly, it is the order of this Court that the respondent, Harold Turk, be disbarred from the practice of law for a period of three years from the date of the judgment of the Board of Governors herein, and thereafter unt…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Dunham, 134 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1961)
- THE Florida BAR v. Carlson, 183 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1966)