THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
O. E. PITTS, 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 review of disciplinary sanctions against attorney O. E. Pitts for ethics violations, including soliciting professional employment and borrowing money from a client at usurious interest rates while later asserting a usury defense. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the suspension penalty as consistent with prior disciplinary cases, with additional conditions requiring restitution and a demonstration of fitness before reinstatement.
The court affirmed the suspension as not too severe and consistent with action taken in similar cases. The court imposed a six-month suspension from the date of the Board's judgment (July 26, 1968), followed by continued suspension until Pitts demonstrated fitness for reinstatement, conditioned upon restitution to the client and payment of costs.
“the referee found Pitts guilty on one charge of soliciting professional employment and, also, on one charge of borrowing a substantial sum of money from a client, giving him a note bearing criminally usurious interest and then pleading usury as a defense to a suit on the note.”
Establishes the specific ethical violations for which Pitts was found guilty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePitts, a Florida attorney, was found guilty of soliciting professional employment and borrowing a substantial sum from a client, executing a note with…
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.
Respondent Pitts, a Florida lawyer, seeks review of a judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar finding him guilty of a violation of certain canons of ethics and recommending discipline.
It is contended that the discipline is too severe and that the alleged misconduct was not proved.
The referee found Pitts guilty on one charge of soliciting professional employment and, also, on one charge of borrowing a substantial sum of money from a client, giving him a note bearing criminally usurious interest and then pleading usury as a defense to a suit on the note. He recommended suspension for six months and thereafter until the lawyer demonstrates that he is entitled to have the suspension removed.
By its judgment the Board of Governors appeared to overlook the finding of solicitation but concurred with the referee on the other finding. It prescribed discipline of suspension for six months and thereafter until the respondent shall demonstrate his fitness to resume the practice of law and shall pay the costs of these proceedings. We do not find the recommended discipline to be too severe. It is consistent with action taken in similar cases. State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Delves, 160 So.2d 114 (Fla.l963).
We are informed that pending the disciplinary proceeding the respondent negotiated restitution and settlement with his former client. The judgment we enter is based upon the assumption that this has been accomplished. If it has not been, then restitution, or at least arrangements for restitution satisfactory to the client, shall be a condition to any reinstatement of Mr. Pitts. In re Delves, 203 So.2d 168 (Fla. 1967). In addition, we note that the complaint against respondent was filed on March 2, 1967, for offenses allegedly committed in 1964. Respondent has not practiced law in Florida for several years.
Subject to the foregoing, the respondent O. E. Pitts is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months from the date of the filing of the judgment of the Board of Governors — July 26, 1968— and thereafter until he shall demonstrate to the Board of Governors and to this Court that he is entitled to reinstatement under the Integration Rule and shall have paid the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $458.27.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., ROBERTS, DREW, THORN AL and CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Froug v. Carnival Leisure Indus., Ltd., 627 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ontrary to law and public policy.” Barquin v. Flores, 459 So. 2d 436, 436-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See § 849.26, Fla.Stat. (1991); Carp v. Florida Beal Estate Commission, 211 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), writ discharged as improvidently issued, 219 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1969); Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Jernigan, 202 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), appeal dismissed, 209 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1968); Young v. Sands, Inc., 122 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). These authorities compel reversal of the judgment o…
-
Rifkin v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Floyd M. Stevens, 345 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…operating a lottery, but with a misdemeanor offense, merely possession of tickets as denounced under section 849.09(h), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.” Thus, in Carp v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 211 So. 2d 240 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); certiorari denied 219 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1969), a conviction for bookmaking was held sufficient to prove guilt of a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 475.25(l)(e), Florida Statutes. In the instant case, petitioners have never been tried for or conceded the…
-
B.B. Nelson v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 707 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ogus diplomas and licenses. State ex rel. Munch v. Davis, 143 Fla. 236, 196 So. 491 (Fla.1940). Bookmaking has been deemed a crime involving moral turpitude. Carp v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 211 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), writ discharged, 219 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1969). We have held that manslaughter by culpable negligence is such a crime. Antel v. Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, 522 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). We agree with Nelson that the misdemeanor offens…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Delves, 160 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1963)
- In re Delves, 203 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1967)