THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
CHARLES H. GREENBERG, 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 disbarment of attorney Charles H. Greenberg for embezzlement and forgery involving client funds. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the Referee's findings and approved disbarment, adopting the recommendation that Greenberg be permanently barred from practicing law in Florida due to his deliberate scheme to steal from clients.
Greenberg is guilty of embezzlement and forgery as charged, in violation of multiple professional conduct rules. He is disbarred from the practice of law in Florida. The Court adopted the Referee's recommendation of disbarment as the appropriate discipline.
[1] Embezzlement and forgery by an attorney constitute grounds for disbarment.
[2] An attorney's mishandling of client funds, particularly on a large scale and involving forgery, demonstrates a deliberate course of criminal conduct.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 pursued a deliberate course of stealing monies from his clients, many of whom were in poor financial circumstances”
Establishes the nature and scope of Greenberg's misconduct—systematic theft from vulnerable clients
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Referee found that Greenberg was guilty of embezzlement and forgery as charged in the complaints against him. He engaged in large-scale mishandlin…
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 Canons Of Professional Ethics cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us for review of the Referee’s findings and recommendations, filed February 1st, 1971, which recommended that Respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida.
The Referee’s Report reads in part:
“After considering all the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that the respondent is guilty of embezzlement and forgery as charged in the original complaint and the second complaint except as to Count 5 of the second complaint to which charge the referee finds the respondent not guilty by reason of absence of sufficient proof of the charge.
“RECOMMENDATION OF GUILT
“It is recommended that respondent be found guilty as charged in the complaint and particularly that he be found guilty of violation of Article XI, Rule 11.02(3) (b) and Rule 11.02(4), of the Integration Rule, Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rule 1, 27, 28 and 30 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida.
“RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE
“It is recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida. The misconduct of the respondent and the mishandling of his *323client’s funds and attendant forgery of their names to checks on such a large scale indicates that the respondent pursued a deliberate course of stealing monies from his clients, many of whom were in poor financial circumstances. His conduct was so reprehensible, callous and criminal, in the opinion of the referee, that simple disbarment does not appear suitable or a sufficient punishment for his crimes. It is therefore recommended that criminal proceedings be instituted against the respondent through the duly constituted authority.”
The record and recommendation of the Referee have been examined by this Court. It is ordered that the recommendation of the Referee that Respondent Charles H. Greenberg is guilty as charged and that he be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida be, and the same is, approved and adopted as the judgment of this Court. Execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against Respondent.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.