THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
MICHAEL J. ZYNE, 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 disciplined attorney Michael J. Zyne for gross negligence, failure to communicate with his client, false statements about work performed, and willful disregard of court orders and disciplinary notices. The Florida Supreme Court approved the Referee's findings and suspended Zyne from practice for six months pending rehabilitation.
Zyne is guilty of the charges as recommended by the Referee and approved by the Board of Governors. He is suspended from the practice of law in Florida for six months and until he demonstrates rehabilitation.
[1] An attorney is subject to disciplinary action for gross dilatoriness in performing agreed-upon legal services.
[2] An attorney's failure to communicate with a client regarding the status of their case constitutes professional misconduct.
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“Respondent, during the later part of 1965, accepted and undertook employment to represent the Complainant as Executrix in the administration of a decedent's estate in the County Judge's Court in and for Dade County, Florida.”
Establishes the professional relationship and scope of representation at issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZyne was retained in late 1965 to represent a client as Executrix in estate administration in Dade County. He was grossly dilatory in performing servi…
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 Dilatory Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us for review of the Referee’s findings and recommendations, approved by the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar, which recommended that respondent be found guilty as charged and suspended from the practice of law in the State of Florida.
The Referee’s report reads in part:
“1. Respondent, during the later part of 1965, accepted and undertook employment to represent the Complainant as Executrix in the administration of a decedent’s estate in the County Judge’s Court in and for Dade County, Florida.
“2. After accepting and undertaking such employment, Respondent was grossly dilatory in performing the services which he agreed to perform and he wholly failed to communicate with his client, Complainant, after inquiry and to apprise her of the status of administration of the Estate. Respondent also made false and misleading statements concerning services which he said had been performed but had not.
“3. As a result of Respondent’s failure to keep Complainant advised and his failure to perform the services for which he was retained, Complainant sought advise from the Judge in whose Court the Estate was being administered, which caused the Judge to admonish Respondent, to direct him to forthwith perform the services which were his duty to perform, and to communicate with his client, Complainant, concerning the status of the same. Respondent promised the Judge that he would perform the serv*2ices and advise the Complainant in accordance with her request, but he failed to do so and failed to report to the Judge as directed.
“4. Respondent has been guilty of dilatory and delinquent tactics and conduct as attorney for the personal representative in other estates being administered in Judge George T. Clark’s division of the County Judge’s Court in and for Dade County, Florida and has been admonished by Judge Clark in other matters pending before him, with the same lack of results as were evident in the matter which led to this Complaint.
“5. Despite receipt of due and adequate Notice of Hearings on this Complaint before the Grievance Committee of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and before the Referee, Respondent failed and/or refused to file any answer or other pleading, failed to appear, either in person or through counsel, at either of said hearings, failed to offer an explanation for his dilatory tactics and conduct as Complainant’s attorney and his dereliction in not responding to admonitions and directions from Judge Clark and in not responding to due and timely notices from The Florida Bar. Having received adequate and ample notice of and opportunity, and being under a duty, to so answer, plead, appear, explain and/or respond, his failure to do so is willful, unjustified and unexplained.”
The record and recommendations of the Referee and the Board of Governors have been examined by this Court. It is ordered that the recommendation that respondent Michael J. Zyne is guilty as charged be, and the same is, approved and adopted as the judgment of this Court. It is further ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of six months and thereafter until he has demonstrated that he has rehabilitated himself. Execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against respondent.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Batista, 846 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2003)…igence concerning delays in probating estate); Florida Bar v. Shannon, 376 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1979) (suspending attorney for ninety-one days where attorney neglected probate matter for over twelve years and charged excessive fees); Florida Bar v. Zyne, 248 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1971) (suspending attorney for six months for neglect, failure to comply with court order, and previous failures to act diligently). Based on the above-cited cases and in light of Batista’s improper witness contact during the Bar proceedings,…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Morse, 784 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2001)…de that a suspension is warranted, our previous caselaw does not support a thirty-day suspension here. The Bar argues that Florida Bar v. Daniel, 626 So. 2d 178 (Fla.1993), Florida Bar v. Shannon, 376 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1979), and Florida Bar v. Zyne, 248 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1971), cases which resulted in suspensions of thirty days to six months, support the referee’s recommendation here. While these cases all involved neglect of legal matters, these cases involved either multiple or more egregious instances of neg…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Zyne, 266 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1972)…PER CURIAM: Again this respondent is before us for further transgressions as an attorney with [*669] recommendation this time for permanent disbarment. Respondent was earlier disciplined as set forth in this Court’s opinion filed May 12, 1971, at 248 So. 2d 1, suspending respondent from the practice of law in Florida for a period of six months and thereafter until he has demonstrated that he has rehabilitated himself. Rather than any demonstration of rehabilitation, there appears to be a further demonstr…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence