THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
RICHARD H. PRITIKIN, 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 Richard H. Pritikin for commingling and converting client trust funds. The Court approved the Board of Governors' judgment suspending him from practice for three years and requiring him to demonstrate fitness before resuming practice.
The Court approved the Board of Governors' judgment, suspending Pritikin from the practice of law for three years and thereafter until he demonstrates fitness to resume practice, and ordering him to pay costs of $290.25.
“After trial the referee found the respondent guilty of commingling the trust funds of his client and converting them to his own use.”
Establishes the factual finding of misconduct that forms the basis for the disciplinary action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePritikin was found guilty of commingling trust funds of his client and converting them to his own use. The referee recommended disbarred, but the Boar…
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 Conversion Of Client Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court for review of the judgment entered by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar on January 8, 1968, the pertinent portions of which are as follows:
“This cause came on for review by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar upon the report of its referee and the record of proceedings before him.
“After trial the referee found the respondent guilty of commingling the trust funds of his client and converting them to his own use. The referee recommended that respondent be disbarred. The Board of Governors concurs in the findings of the referee. It agrees that the offense is serious and that the defenses offered are not acceptable. Because of respondent’s past record and relative inexperience, it offers a lesser disciplinary measure than the referee’s recommendation of disbarment. Upon consideration therefore it is
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the respondent be found guilty and that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and thereafter until he shall demonstrate his fitness to resume the practice of law. It is further ordered that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $290.25.”
We have heard oral argument and have reviewed the record and briefs in this proceeding.
It is ordered that the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar be, and it is approved and respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years from the effective date of our judgment and thereafter until he shall demonstrate his fitness to resume the practice of law. The Florida Bar shall have and recover from respondent the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $290.25, for which let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Pritikin, 259 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1972)…*139] PER CURIAM. On September 25, 1968, this Court suspended respondent Richard H. Pritikin, a member of The Florida Bar, for a period of three years, and thereafter until rehabilitation was demonstrated. After the announcement of this decision in 214 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1968), another complaint against respondent, arising out of the same general scheme or transaction, came on for hearing. Now the referee has recommended an additional two-year suspension. The Florida Bar seeks to have more stringent penalties i…
-
Complaint of Tropical Coach Lines, Inc. v. Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc., 36 Fla. Supp. 181 (Fla. P.S.C. 1972)…on or condition of the authority therein granted to Wylly’s. The proceedings were thoroughly litigated, taken to the Supreme Court on petition by one of the protestants (Turfway Lines, Inc.), where certiorari was denied. Turfway Lines, Inc. v. Mayo, 214 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1968). The examiner in the pending proceeding under docket no. 7308-CCB took official notice of the statements made by Wylly’s officer. However, the taking of such official notice was improper and contrary to the provisions of commission rule…