THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
STANLEY A. GOLDHABER, 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 brought a disciplinary action against attorney Stanley Goldhaber for misappropriating client funds in three separate matters. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the referee's recommendation to disbar Goldhaber for his unlawful conversion of client monies and other violations of professional conduct rules.
The Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 11:02, Cannon 11 of the Cannons of Professional Ethics, and Rules 1, 27, 28, and 30 of the Florida Bar regulations, and disbarred him from the practice of law in Florida.
[1] An attorney misappropriates client funds when they convert funds received in trust for a real estate transaction to their own use.
[2] An attorney unlawfully converts client funds collected from a lawsuit to their own use when they retain the entire sum despite being entitled to only a portion as a fee.
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“The Respondent, on or about February 17, 1970, did receive from EDWARD JOHNSON the sum of Five Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($5,-700.00) to be held in trust for him in connection with a pending real estate transaction. Subsequently, the Respondent was unable to pay over the purchase price to the seller, having misappropriated said funds to his own use.”
Establishes the core factual basis for the misappropriation findings in Count One.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoldhaber received $5,700 in trust from Edward Johnson for a real estate transaction and misappropriated the funds, requiring the purchasers to pay an…
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 Issuing Worthless Checks cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us pursuant to Rule 11.09(3), Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A., to review the report of the referee dated August 3, 1971. That report is in pertinent part as follows: ■
“After considering all of the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that:
“COUNT ONE
“1. The Respondent, on or about February 17, 1970, did receive from EDWARD JOHNSON the sum of Five Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($5,-700.00) to be held in trust for him in connection with a pending real estate transaction.
“2. Subsequently, the Respondent was unable to pay over the purchase price to *14the seller, having mis-appropriated said funds to his own use.
“3. Respondent subsequently was unable to replace all of said funds, necessitating the purchasers having to pay an additional sum of Three Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Two Dollars and Sixty Eight Cents ($3,682.68) to the seller to complete the purchase.
“COUNT TWO
“1. The Respondent collected the sum of Six Hundred Twenty Two Dollars ($622.00) for KEEM KALFON as a result of a Small Claims Court action against Hemispheres Apartments.
“2. Respondent was entitled to a fee of )4, however he retained the entire sum of Six Hundred Twenty Two Dollars ($622.00), and unlawfully converted same to his own use.
“3. Respondent subsequently issued a worthless check to KEEM KALFON, and has never paid same to this date.
“COUNT THREE
“1. The Respondent was retained to represent a minor, MARY ALMA CLARK, and her grandmother-guardian, ALMA HALL, in a negligence action.
“2. Respondent settled that action for the sum of Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) and unlawfully converted the entire sum to his own use. He was to have received only a contingent fee in the amount of 1/3 of any recovery.
“3. Respondent subsequently issued a worthless check for the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) which was never paid.
“RECOMMENDATION OF GUILT
“It is recommended that the Respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts one, two and three of the Complaint, and particularly that he be found guilty of violations of Rule 11:02 of Article XI of the Integration Rule of the Florida Bar; Cannon 11 of the Cannons of Professional Ethics; and Rules 1, 27, 28, and 30 of additional rules governing the conduct of attorneys in Florida.”
The referee recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida and pay the costs of the proceedings in the amount of $189.78.
Respondent did not appear at the hearing before the referee and has not requested a hearing before us.
Accordingly, we have reviewed the report of the referee and the record submitted and conclude that the recommendation of the referee that respondent be disbarred and pay the costs of the proceedings be approved, and it is hereby adopted as the judgment of this Court.
Execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against respondent.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kuvin, Klingensmith & Lewis, P. A. v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 371 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ecific statutory prohibition, no tax monies may be involved. § 631.-57(3)(d) provides: “No state funds of any kind shall be allocated or paid to said association or any of its accounts.” As the court was careful to point out in O’Malley, supra, at 257 So. 2d 13: “Here there is no question but that the funds to pay claims of insureds of insolvent insurers are not state revenues but are treated throughout as trust funds separate and apart from general tax funds or other state revenue.” In our view, the tot…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Blalock, 325 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1976)…c disease control program. The Bar urges a maximum three-year term of suspension, coupled with restitution and proof of rehabilitation before reinstatement to the Bar. . The Florida Bar v. Welch, 309 So. 2d 537 (1975); The Florida Bar v. Goldhaber, 257 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1971); The Florida Bar v. Scott, 227 So. 2d 195 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Buskin, 126 So. 2d 142, 143 (Fla.1961). . The Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130, (Fla.1970); The Florida Bar v. Hudson, 199 So. 2d 474 (Fla.1967)…