THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
RICHARD B. AUSTIN, 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 Richard B. Austin for improperly handling settlement proceeds belonging to his client. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's recommendation and issued a public reprimand after Austin failed to timely transmit $1,315.67 in settlement funds to the client for approximately two years.
The Court found Austin guilty of violating professional responsibility rules regarding trust funds (Rule 11.02(4) of Article XI of the Integration Rule, Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Rule 1 of Additional Rules) and issued a public reprimand as the appropriate discipline.
[1] An attorney violates professional responsibility by neglecting and refusing to transmit settlement proceeds to a client until disciplinary action is instituted.
[2] An attorney's financial difficulties and IRS issues may mitigate the degree of discipline for professional misconduct but do not excuse the guilt or seriousness of the vi…
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“That on March 10, 1969, Respondent received $1315.67 which he was under a duty to forthwith transmit to Mrs. Shirley T. Milstead”
Establishes the core fact that Austin had a clear legal duty to promptly transmit settlement funds to his client
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 10, 1969, Austin received $1,315.67 in settlement proceeds from Government Employees Insurance Company that he was obligated to promptly tran…
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 Canons Of Professional Ethics cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Bar discipline proceeding, we review a recommendation of the referee dated October 7, 1971, that respondent Richard B. Austin, a member of The Florida Bar, be publicly reprimanded for his conduct in disbursing the proceeds of a settlement negotiated on behalf of his client with the Government Employees Insurance Company. Neither side has requested a hearing.
In pertinent part, the report of the referee reads as follows:
“After consideration of the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that:
“1. That on March 10, 1969, Respondent received $1315.67 which he was under a duty to forthwith transmit to Mrs. Shirley T. Milstead of RFD #2, *143Maple Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York, 12886.
“2. That Respondent neglected and refused to transmit said sum to Mrs. Milstead until disciplinary action had been instituted.
“3. That on April 5, 1971, Respondent paid $1305.93 of said sum and paid an additional $231.44 on April 12, 1971, thereby restoring to Mrs. Milstead the sum due plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum during the period of some two years delay.
“RECOMMENDATION OF GUILT
“It is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of violation of Rule 11.02(4) of Article XI of the Integration Rule (effective as of June 15, 1968), Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (effective as of May 11, 1966) and Rule 1 of Additional Rules (effective as of December 6, 1955) Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida; that is to say, that Respondent violated his professional responsibility with respect to trust funds.
“RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE
“It would be difficult to overstate the remorse and regret of Respondent for the unprofessional conduct which he had acknowledged and cooperated with Bar counsel in establishing. The complexities of the normal practice of law, under normal circumstances, are multiplied many times when a lawyer gets into financial difficulty and many times more when his office is padlocked by the Internal Revenue Service. While such facts mitigate the degree of discipline recommended, they do not in any way excuse the guilt found or the seriousness of the violation.
“The finding of guilt alone, and the imposition of any discipline, is an added handicap to Respondent who is seeking to make his way in the practice of law, “sadder but wiser” for this experience.
“Accordingly, it is recommended that the Respondent suffer a public reprimand at a time and place, and under such circumstances as the Board of Governors shall determine.”
Having examined the record and the report, we now approve the findings and recommendations of the referee. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that this opinion shall constitute a public reprimand of respondent, Richard B. Austin. Execution is hereby directed to issue for costs against respondent.
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. Welty, 382 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1980)…his trust account. The trust account was completely balanced in September of 1978, and at the time of the institution of the grievance procedures all shortages had been corrected by the respondent. Respondent refers us to The Florida Bar v. Austin, 259 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1972), where an attorney failed to transmit to his client the proceeds of a settlement. The proceeds were not transmitted until disciplinary proceedings had been instituted. The Court approved a public reprimand. Respondent also cites The Flor…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Reese, 263 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1972)…e 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 determined a public reprimand to be sufficient discipline for an attorney who commingled the funds of his client, although the attorney failed to repay the funds until disciplinary action had been instituted against him. The…