THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ROBERT PARSONS, 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 approved a Board of Governors disciplinary order suspending attorney Robert Parsons from practice for one year and indefinitely thereafter until he demonstrates professional and psychological rehabilitation, following his failure to diligently represent a client and issuance of worthless checks.
The court approved suspension from practice for one year and thereafter until the respondent demonstrates professional and psychological rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the court and Board, makes restitution to affected parties, and pays costs of $177.25.
[1] A lawyer may be disciplined for failing to represent a client with diligence and for issuing worthless checks.
[2] A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity in criminal cases does not preclude disciplinary action against a lawyer for the same conduct.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The respondent be suspended from practice for a period of one year and thereafter until he shall demonstrate his professional and psychological rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the Court and of this Board and until he shall make restitution to the persons mentioned above”
States the core disciplinary sanction—suspension with conditions for reinstatement based on rehabilitation and restitution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Parsons failed to represent a client with diligence and failed to appear and defend the client, resulting in an adverse judgment. During 19…
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 Psychiatric Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
The judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, entered in this disciplinary proceeding on June 11, 1970 and filed in this court June 12, 1970, with record, evidence and all proceedings had herein, came ón to be reviewed by this court.
The report and order of the Board of Governors are as follows:
“The Florida Bar’s amended Complaint was filed on June 17, 1968 charging respondent with having failed to represent a client with diligence and failure to appear and defend said client with the result that an adverse judgment was entered against him; it was further charged that respondent issued and negotiated some 19 worthless checks during 1967. It was stipulated that he was charged with the crime of uttering a worthless check in each of these cases. The record shows that he was found not guilty by reason of insanity in each case. The referee heard testimony by *645respondent and considered testimony or reports of several psychiatrists who had treated or examined respondent. The referee found the respondent guilty as charged. He recommended that respondent he suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of time during which respondent shall accomplish restitution to his former client, Murray Swim, and to other persons who advanced funds in exchange for his dishonored checks; and he shall further submit to psychiatric treatment for at least one year and thereafter until his doctor can certify that the repetition of his illness (cyclical manic depressive psychosis) is highly unlikely; and that thereafter he be permitted to resume the practice of law under conditions of a supervisory probation for a period of one year.
“This Board has carefully considered the entire record, and particularly notes with approval the diligent efforts of its referee and bar counsel. It also appreciates the service of respondent’s ‘court appointed’ counsel who has represented his client most ably. The Board concurs in the findings of fact of the referee. It further concurs in the recommendation that he be suspended for at least one year. The Board is reluctant, however, to attempt to establish at this time all of the conditions of the respondent’s anticipated reinstatement to the practice of law. The Board’s experience suggests that, if a petition for reinstatement should be filed, the Court should not be bound by the certificate of only one doctor (of respondent’s choosing) ; and it should not now attempt to establish the conditions of a probation when it does not know what respondent’s situation might be at that time. Accordingly, it is
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the respondent be suspended from practice for a period of one year and thereafter until he shall demonstrate his professional and psychological rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the Court and of this Board and until he shall make restitution to the persons mentioned above, as agreed by the parties. It is further ordered that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $177.25.
We have carefully reviewed the record, including report of the referee and the Board of Governors. No petition for review or request for further proceedings has been made by respondent, and after being considered it is
Ordered that the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, dated June 11, 1970, that respondent, Robert Parsons, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year from the date of this order and thereafter until he shall make restitution and until he shall demonstrate his professional and psychological rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the court and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $177.25, be, and the same is, approved and adopted as the judgment of this court.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Davis, 361 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1978)…24 [*162] (Fla.1974); In re Hill, 298 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1974); The Florida Bar v. Thomson, 271 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Kelly, 269 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Hill, 265 So. 2d 698 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Parsons, 238 So. 2d 644 (Fla.1970); The Florida Bar v. Dingle, 235 So. 2d 479 (Fla.1970); The Florida Bar v. Budzinki, 217 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1968); The Florida Bar v. Charles, 201 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1967); The Florida Bar v. Baxter, 178 So. 2d 699 (Fla.1965); and The Florida Ba…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Clement, 662 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1995)…m to use funds in his trust account for personal purposes). While the referee in the instant case correctly considered Clement’s mental condition in mitigation, see, e.g., Florida Bar v. Perri, 435 So. 2d 827, 829 (Fla.1983); Florida Bar v. Parsons, 238 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla.1970), Clement’s bipolar disorder continued while he was under the care of a psychiatrist. The referee rejected Butler’s testimony in Count 1 regarding Clement’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. The referee found clear and convinci…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Emile Gus Musleh, 453 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1984)…n mitigation of his wrongful actions. This has been the course adopted in past disciplinary proceedings. See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Perri, 435 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1983); The Florida Bar v. Moran, 273 So. 2d 379 (Fla.1973); The Florida Bar v. Parsons, 238 So. 2d 644 (Fla.1970). The Parsons case is particularly apposite to our consideration of the case at bar. Parsons had been charged in circuit court with passing worthless checks, but he was found not guilty by reason of insanity on each count. The Florida Bar…