THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
CLARA A. BRITTON, 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 Clara A. Britton for collecting double fees from both her client and the opposing spouse in an uncontested divorce case without properly refunding the duplicate compensation. The court issued a public reprimand, noting her truculent resistance to returning funds and her prior disciplinary history.
The court found Britton guilty of violating Article 11.02 of the Integration Rule, Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Florida Rules 1 and 27, and imposed a public reprimand as the appropriate discipline.
[1] An attorney's receipt of double compensation for the same services, where one payment was made by the client and another by the client's spouse pursuant to a stipulation,…
[2] An attorney's resistance to returning unearned fees and costs to a client after receiving double compensation can be a factor in determining the appropriate disciplinary…
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“respondent resisted and paid her only $150.00, of which at least $90.00 was characterized by respondent as being a donation to Mrs. Criss merely 'on account of her need.'”
Establishes Britton's inadequate and evasive refund of the duplicate fees, characterizing part as a donation rather than acknowledging the double collection error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBritton agreed to represent Mrs. Criss in a divorce for $300 in fees and $60 in costs, which Criss paid. A stipulation agreement was later executed re…
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 Prior Disciplinary Record cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Bar discipline proceeding, we review a recommendation of the referee that Clara A. Britton, a member of The Florida Bar, be publicly reprimanded for her conduct relating to the collection of fees and costs in an uncontested divorce case.
Respondent was asked by Mrs. Hedda Criss to represent her in a divorce action. Respondent agreed, and she informed her client that she would be charged the Bar fee schedule minimum ($300.00) and costs ($60.00). In consequence, Mrs. Criss paid respondent the requested sums. Thereafter, in the course of the proceedings, Mrs. Criss signed a stipulation agreement, which was also executed by her husband, requiring that he pay respondent attorney fees as the representative of Mrs. Criss, in addition to costs.
The husband honored the stipulation and paid respondent both fees and costs. Soon after the divorce was completed, Mr. and Mrs. Criss reconciled their differences and remarried. Only thereafter did Mrs. Criss find that respondent had received double compensation. Mrs. Criss requested that her money be returned, but respondent resisted and paid her only $150.00, of which at least $90.00 was characterized by respondent as being a donation to Mrs. Criss merely “on account of her need.” At the hearing before the referee, respondent stated that she felt she had a right to keep all sums received, and that the husband’s contribution was in the nature of a windfall.
We are in accord with the referee’s recommendation that respondent be found guilty of violating Article 11.02 of the Integration Rule, Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Rules 1 and 27 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florid?, 32 F.S.A. We also agree with the recommended discipline' of public reprimand. Had. respondent been less truculent, less insistent that she was *526entitled to all fees and costs paid, we would be inclined to administer a reprimand in private. We also note that respondent has previously stood before the Bar as the subject of discipline. This is not her first reprimand; in addition, she was once suspended from practice for three months for professional misconduct and for improper solicitation. The Florida Bar v. Britton, 181 So.2d 161 (Fla.1965).
It is the judgment of this Court that this opinion shall constitute a public reprimand of respondent, Clara A. Britton. Costs and reimbursements will not be assessed because they appear to have been paid by respondent subsequent to the filing of the referee’s recommendations with this Court.
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. Ethier, 261 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1972)…their course without participation on his part. He has filed no brief or response in this cause. Oral argument has been waived. We are satisfied that the referee’s recommendation of a public reprimand will suffice here. See Florida Bar v. Britton, 255 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1971). But respondent should realize that any further offense on his part will subject him to discipline beyond a reprimand. Violation of the obligation of fidelity to clients strikes at the heart of the ethical responsibilities of an attorney.…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Britton, 181 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1965)
- Trepanier v. State, 181 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1965)