THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
RICHARD H. PRITIKIN, 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 court held that an additional two-year suspension for misappropriation of escrow funds should run concurrently with a prior three-year suspension, considering the tardy prosecution.
[1] A disciplinary suspension period may be deemed to have run concurrently with a previously imposed suspension when the offenses are factually and temporally linked and pro…
[2] Misappropriation of escrow funds constitutes a disciplinary offense warranting suspension.
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 intelligenceRespondent Richard H. Pritikin, a member of The Florida Bar, faced a new complaint arising from the same scheme for which he was previously suspended.…
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 Rehabilitation cases and more on FLexlaw
On September 25, 1968, this Court suspended respondent Richard H. Pritikin, a member of The Florida Bar, for a period of three years, and thereafter until rehabilitation was demonstrated. After the announcement of this decision in 214 So.2d 482 (Fla.1968), another complaint against respondent, arising out of the same general scheme or transaction, came on for hearing. Now the referee has recommended an additional two-year suspension. The Florida Bar seeks to have more stringent penalties imposed.
After reviewing the record and hearing arguments, and noting that respondent has admitted the factual allegations relating to his misappropriation of escrow funds, we have concluded that a two-year suspension is appropriate. Because the offense currently under review is essentially linked factually and in time with the activity for which a three-year suspension has already been assigned, we hold that the additional two-year period should be considered as already having run concurrently with the time thus far served in suspension. Justification for this nunc pro tunc approach rests in part upon what we view as a tardy prosecution of this matter by The Florida Bar.
Respondent retains, of course, the burden of showing his rehabilitation in a proper proceeding, a burden compounded by this additional disciplinary measure. In passing, we note further that respondent’s debts arising out of this venture remain unsettled, as well as those brought to our attention in the first action in which he was a respondent. Satisfaction in full of these obligations is an obvious condition precedent to a showing of rehabilitation.
The recommendation of the referee is modified to the extent that the two-year additional suspension will be considered as already having been served. Respondent continues under suspension until rehabilitation has been shown. Costs of these proceedings in the amount of $317.87 are hereby assessed against him.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Ellis Rubin, 362 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1978)…(1954). . Delays in the Bar’s prosecution, akin to a late filing of referees’ reports, have occasionally influenced the Court to mitigate punishment. See, e. g., The Florida Bar v. Papy, 358 So. 2d 4, No. 50,810 (1978); The Florida Bar v. Pritikin, 259 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Randolph, 238 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1970). . Fla.Bar Integr. Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.12. . The Bar initially asserted that the 30-day period began to run with the filing of the referees’ reports and record with the Court,…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Reese, 263 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1972)…has committed no new offenses since the imposition of penalties in The Florida Bar v. Reese, supra. Therefore, we are inclined to view these present instances of misconduct more leniently than we otherwise would. Accord, The Florida Bar v. Pritikin, 259 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1972). Admittedly, in The Florida Bar v. Reese, supra, respondent promptly repaid the funds commingled; he did not do so here. However, the case bears a strong resemblance to The Florida Bar v. Austin, 259 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1972), in which we de…
Authorities Cited
- Turfway Lines, Inc. v. Mayo, 214 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1968)
- THE Florida BAR v. Pritikin, 214 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1968)