THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
JACK J. GOLD, 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 Bar sought discipline against attorney Jack Gold for forging names on mortgage satisfaction documents and mishandling client funds. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Governors' decision to disbar Gold, finding the penalty amply justified by his misconduct.
Disbarment is the appropriate discipline for Gold's conduct. The court affirmed the Board of Governors' judgment that Gold be disbarred from the practice of law based on his forgery of mortgage documents, uttering forged instruments, and making false notary certificates.
“respondent forged the names of Morris Bergstein and Marion Bergstein to a satisfaction of mortgage, witnessed and caused another to witness the forgery, took the acknowledgement and caused or allowed the forgery to be recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida”
Establishes the core misconduct—forgery of mortgage documents and recording them in public records
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGold forged the names of Morris and Marion Bergstein on a satisfaction of mortgage in November 1963, witnessed the forgery, obtained and recorded it i…
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 Uttering A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar entered April 1, 1967.
The referee found that on or about November 14, 1963, respondent forged the names of Morris Bergstein and Marion Bergstein to a satisfaction of mortgage, witnessed and caused another to witness the forgery, took the acknowledgement and caused or allowed the forgery to be recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida; that as a result of said forgery, respondent obtained approximately $5,000 which he converted to his own use but, subsequently, repaid. The referee further found that the respondent closed a real estate transaction for one Albert P. Juliano and borrowed approximately $6,000, the cash proceeds from the sale of the property, of which he has repaid $1,000.
As to the Bergstein forgery, the referee found respondent was guilty of violating Article XI, Rule 11.02(3) (b), Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rules 1, 23, 27, 28, 30 and 32 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida, 32 F.S.A.; that respondent admitted the forgery as defined by F.S. 831.01, F.S.A., uttering a forged instrument as defined by F.S. 831.02, F.S.A., and making a false certificate of a notary public as defined by F.S. 117.09(2), F.S.A. The referee recommended that respondent be disbarred for this conduct.
As to the Juliano complaint, the referee found respondent guilty and recommended a private reprimand.
The Board of Governors approved and adopted the referee’s recommendation of guilt in the Bergstein complaint but found respondent not guilty of the charges arising from the Juliano complaint. The Board agreed with the referee’s recommendation of discipline in the Bergstein matter, and ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay the costs in the amount of $609.88.
Respondent has petitioned this Court for review of the judgment of the Board of Governors contending that the Board overlooked mitigating circumstances and that the penalty of disbarment is too harsh.
We have examined the record, the report of the referee, the judgment of the Board and heard oral argument on behalf of the parties. We find the recommended judgment of disbarment is amply justified by the facts.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the judgment of the Board of Governors, dated April 1, 1967, be approved; that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $609.88.
It is Ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Spann, 682 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1996)…86 (Fla.1990) (cumulative nature of attorney’s misconduct warranted disbarment rather than two-year suspension recommended by referee); Florida Bar v. Newman, 513 So. 2d 656 (Fla.l987)(eumulative misconduct warrants disbarment); Florida Bar v. Gold, 203 So. 2d 324 (Fla.l967)(disbarment appropriate where attorney, among other things, forged a document, notarized it, and used it for his own gain). Adding the severity and number of violations here and the lengthy period of time over which these violations occur…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Hall, 49 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 2010)…disciplinary record evince a pat [*1263] tern of misconduct warranting disbarment. Id. at 1282. The Court disbarred Cram-er for his misconduct, including the forgery, which he committed in his personal business dealings. See also Fla. Bar v. Gold, 203 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1967) (disbarring a respondent who engaged in forgery and recorded the forgery). Case law demonstrates that attorneys who engage in forgery can receive severe sanctions. Accordingly, we find that the referee’s recommendation of a ninety-day su…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Gold, 230 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1970)…PER CURIAM: The respondent in this cause was disbarred by judgment of this Court filed October 4, 1967. The Florida Bar v. Jack J. Gold, 203 So. 2d 324. There has now been filed in this cause a Judgment of the Board of Governors of [*151] The Florida Bar finding that the respondent, Jack J. Gold, subsequent to January 1, 1967, but prior to the date of the judgment of this Court aforesaid and while…