STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
LLOYD J. BENNETT, JR., RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1971-02-24
No. 39842
ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur., ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.
246 So. 2d 107 Florida Supreme Court (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court disciplined attorney Lloyd J. Bennett, Jr. for failing to keep a client, Joel Lewis, properly informed about negotiations and transactions related to the purchase of a hotel property called Green Mansions. The Court suspended Bennett from practice for three months, finding professional responsibility violations but reducing the recommended discipline due to conflicting evidence about the scope and nature of the attorney-client relationship.


Holding

Bennett violated Article XI, Rule 11.02(2) of the Integration Rule, Canons 10 and 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Rule 1 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida by failing to keep Lewis fully advised, particularly regarding the purchase of Green Mansions by Parkway Villas. However, due to conflicting evidence regarding the scope of the attorney-client relationship and the degree of professional responsibility owed, the Court imposed a three-month suspension rather than the more severe sanctions recommended by the Referee and Board of Governors.


Headnotes

[1] A reviewing court will not disturb the determinations of a trier of fact unless there is manifest error therein.

[2] An attorney may be disciplined for failing to keep a client properly advised of the progress of negotiations and ultimate arrangements.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“Respondent failed to keep his client properly advised of the progress of the negotiations and the ultimate arrangements which were perfected.”

The Referee's key finding regarding Bennett's professional responsibility violation regarding his failure to advise Lewis about the transaction progress.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Bennett was involved in complex financial dealings regarding Green Mansions hotel, which was encumbered by multiple mortgages. Lewis, president of Gol…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The Referee found Respondent guilty of violation of Article XI, Rule 11.02(2) of the Integration Rule, 32 F.S.A., Canons 10 and 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, 32 F.S.A. and Rule 1 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida, 32 F.S.A. He recommended Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for not less than five years. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar concurred in the Referee’s findings of fact and guilt, but recommended that he be suspended for one year.

The testimony is conflicting and confusing. The questionable behavior arose out of financial . dealings involving Murray Bloom’s hotel, “Green Mansions,” and the adjacent real property. The building and land were encumbered by a first mortgage to American -National Insurance Company in the amount of $200,000, and two other mortgages, one in the amount of $50,000 to Maulé Industries and. another for $25,000 to Golden Isles Mortgage Corporation; the priority of the latter two mortgages is uncertain.

Joel Lewis, the Complainant, was the president and principal stockholder of Golden Isles. Respondent, who had various business interests, borrowed heavily from both Lewis individually and Golden Isles. When Green Mansions became financially troubled, Lewis suggested to Murray Bloom that he hire Respondent to handle bankruptcy proceedings. They were unsuccessful; however Respondent was awarded a $13,800 fee which became a lien on the property.

Maulé then filed to foreclose. Golden Isles hired Respondent to foreclose, and finally American National filed to foreclose its first mortgage. In an attempt to preserve the subordinate liens, Respondent and Maule’s attorneys began negotiations to refinance the first mortgage.

During this time, Respondent organized Parkway Villas, Inc., with himself as president and major stockholder. According to the Certificate of Incorporation, Respondent held 98 of the 100 shares of stock. It was finally decided that Maulé would obtain the first mortgage; before doing so, however, Maule’s attorney drew up a general release between Maulé Industries as the releasee and Golden Isles, Parkway Villas, and Lloyd Bennett as releasors. The general release stated: “It has been *108agreed by the parties that the negotiations between them are to stop and that any and all agreements between them with respect to said negotiations are to be cancelled and terminated.” Apparently this was executed. Respondent contends this release terminated his legal responsibility to Lewis.

Maulé’s closing was continually postponed and finally, according to Lewis’ testimony, he told Respondent that Golden Isles had the funds to purchase the property and he wished to do so. Instead, Parkway Villas bought Green Mansions for $100, with the understanding that the $209,000 balance due American National would be paid. Parkway was able to obtain a $190,000 first mortgage, but needed $45,000 to complete the sale. Maulé and Parkway advanced $22,500 each; Lewis refused to contribute.

Respondent testified that Lewis knew he had formed Parkway Villas; he also stated that Lewis’ stock participation in any corporation formed to buy Green Mansions was contingent on his contributing money to the purchase price. At the time he bought the hotel Respondent apparently felt that he and Lewis no longer had an attorney-client relationship.

Lewis’ statements, however, indicate that he had a contrary view of their relationship. He stated that he had instructed Respondent to form the new corporation, with Golden Isles as principal stockholder so Golden Isles would not have to sign the mortgage note. He testified that he attempted to find out how negotiations with Maulé were progressing but that Respondent was evasive.

The Referee found that “Respondent failed to keep his client properly advised of the progress of the negotiations and the ultimate arrangements which were perfected.” There is evidence in the transcript supportive of this conclusion, although admittedly the Referee could have reached a contrary conclusion. It also contains evidence that supports the conclusion that, at least in Lewis’ mind, there was still an attorney-client relationship between the two for Lewis apparently was relying on Respondent to protect his interest in Green Mansions.

The findings of the Referee on these conflicting facts are approved by us under the general rule that the determinations of a trier of fact will not be disturbed by the reviewing court unless there is manifest error therein. London Operating Co. v. Continental Const. Co., 118 Fla. 15, 159 So. 33, and Carolina Lumber Co. v. Daniel, Fla.App., 97 So.2d 156.

As before noted, the Board of Governors recommended the Referee’s recommendation of suspension be reduced from five years to one year; we in turn have decided a further reduction is in order. Our reason therefor is that the conflicting evidence leaves some doubt as to the degree of business relationship that existed between Lewis and Respondent as opposed to their attorney-client relationship. Apparently, both relationships existed, leaving some confusion as to the extent of professional responsibility owed by Respondent to Lewis in the transactions related. We do not wish it to be understood that we condemn or penalize Respondent for his omissions respecting Lewis which were not a part of his professional responsibility to him as attorney. Moreover, it is not clear from the record by tangible evidence just what were the financial arrangements and other contractual considerations Lewis extended to Respondent to retain him as his counsel although there was unquestionably some kind of tacitly understood agreement that Respondent represent Lewis in certain facets of the related transactions.1 With *109these considerations in mind, we believe it comports with justice due to the uncertainties in this matter to further reduce the suspension recommended.

Accordingly, the Respondent is reprimanded for not keeping Lewis fully advised in particular with respect to the purchase of Green Mansions by Parkway Villas.

It is ordered that Lloyd J. Bennett be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for three months and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $1,608.08.

ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …1961). . In re Dawson, supra note 7. . Fact finding in disciplinary matters should not be overturned unless wholly lacking in evidentiary support. State ex rel. The Fla. Bar v. Bass, 106 So. 2d 77 (Fla.1958); State ex rel. The Fla. Bar v. Bennett, 246 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1971). See also Integr.Rules 11.09 (3) (e) and 11.11.…
  • …tated on other occasions, this Court will not reverse the findings of a referee unless the findings are clearly erroneous or wholly lacking in evidentiary support. The Florida Bar, 323 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1975), State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Bennett, 246 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1971), The Florida Bar v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1968). Respondent has failed totally to demonstrate that the findings of the referee are without support in the record, much less that they are clearly erroneous. The con-clusory statements…
  • THE Florida BAR v. Bratton, 413 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1982)
    …nd a public reprimand for count two. Respondent contends that the referee’s findings of fact on count one are erroneous. We conclude that the findings are not clearly erroneous and therefore must be upheld. State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Bennett, 246 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1971); The Florida Bar v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1968). Respondent argues that he held a lien on the $10,000 and was entitled to retain it. Although article XI, rule 11.02(4) provides for retention of money or property upon which a lawyer…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw