THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
FRANK CLYDE REESE, 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 action against attorney Frank Clyde Reese for commingling client funds and making unauthorized use of those funds for personal purposes. The court approved the referee's recommendation and imposed a public reprimand and cost sanctions on the attorney.
The court found Reese guilty of violating Article XI, Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule and imposed a public reprimand and costs of $77.35.
[1] Commingling client funds with personal funds constitutes a violation of professional conduct rules.
[2] Unauthorized use of client funds for personal obligations, even if intended for the client's benefit, is a violation.
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 between October 28, 1968 and November 12, 1968, did withhold from funds belonging to Harold Paul Heffernan, an absentee person, and as to which his client, Helen Rita Hef-fernan, was conservator, the amount of $497.25 and did thereafter place said amount in an account with funds of his own, thereby commingling said funds.”
Establishes the factual basis for the commingling violation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBetween October 28 and November 12, 1968, Reese withheld $497.25 belonging to an absentee client (Harold Paul Heffernan) for whom his client Helen Rit…
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 Disciplinary Action cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review a report of the referee in this disciplinary action in which it is recommended that respondent, Frank Clyde Reese, be publicly reprimanded and charged with the costs of the proceedings against him. A hearing has not been requested.
The referee’s report includes the following :
“FINDINGS OF FACT
“After considering all of the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that:
“1. The respondent between October 28, 1968 and November 12, 1968, did withhold from funds belonging to Harold Paul Heffernan, an absentee person, and as to which his client, Helen Rita Hef-fernan, was conservator, the amount of $497.25 and did thereafter place said amount in an account with funds of his own, thereby commingling said funds.
“2. Subsequently, during or about December, 1968, the respondent did apply said amount to the payment of a personal obligation to the Internal Revenue Department, thereby making an unauthorized use of said funds for his own personal benefit.
“3. The respondent did not intend to deprive the client of said funds and initially withheld them for a purpose which he conceived to be of benefit to the client.
“4. The respondent knowingly and intentionally used said funds for a payment of a personal obligation, under threat of seizure by the Internal Revenue Department.
“5. The respondent has re-paid said funds to the client prior to the institution of these proceedings.
“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(4) of the Integration Rule [32 F.S.A.],
“RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE
“It is recommended that respondent be administered a public reprimand and that he pay the costs of these proceedings.”
Having examined the record and report, we now approve the findings and recommendations of the referee. Respondent, Frank Clyde Reese, is hereby publicly reprimanded and the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $77.35 are hereby charged against him.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Welty, 382 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1980)…ven to the attorney for failure to properly account for trust funds and failure to disburse them according to his client’s direction. There was no embezzlement or misappropriation in this case. Respondent also refers us to The Florida Bar v. Reese, 247 So. 2d 718 (Fla.1971). The respondent was found guilty of withholding funds, placing them in an account of his own, and commingling those funds. He personally applied those funds to the payment of a personal obligation, making unauthorized use of the funds for…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Reese, 263 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1972)…m as a member of the Bar” revealed by the evidence. We note, with regard to the latter contention, that respondent has previously been disciplined by this Court for commingling his client’s funds with his own. In that case, The Florida Bar v. Reese, 247 So. 2d 718 (Fla.1971), respondent repaid the monies prior to the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him; we concluded that a public reprimand was adequate discipline. Normally, the fact of prior disciplinary proceedings involving an attorney appe…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Reese, 421 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1982)