THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWARD G. RICCARDI, 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 petitioned for disciplinary action against attorney Edward G. Riccardi, who was convicted of bribery of a federal official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(f). The Florida Supreme Court disbarred Riccardi, holding that bribery constitutes a particularly serious ethical violation that strikes at the core of an attorney's responsibility to the public.
The court disbarred Riccardi from the practice of law in Florida. The court held that bribery is a particularly serious ethical violation that warrants disbarring absent significant mitigating factors, because it breaches the attorney's public trust and induces third parties to engage in fraudulent and corrupt practices.
[1] A felony conviction for bribery constitutes a serious ethical violation for an attorney.
[2] A final judgment of guilt for a criminal offense is conclusive proof of guilt for the purpose of bar discipline.
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 intelligence“bribery is a particularly noxious ethical failure under the Code of Professional Responsibility, because it not only involves a breach of the individual attorney's public trust as a member of the legal profession, but also represents an attempt by the offending lawyer to induce a third party to engage in fraudulent and corrupt practices”
Establishes the court's rationale for treating bribery as an especially serious ethical violation warranting disbarring.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward G. Riccardi, a member of The Florida Bar, was convicted on January 27, 1972, of bribery of an Internal Revenue Agent. Riccardi had attempted to…
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 Public Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a Bar discipline matter. On January 27, 1972, Edward G. Riccardi, a member of The Florida Bar, was adjudged guilty of a violation of Title 18, Section 201(f), U.S.Code, which provides in pertinent part:
“(f) Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”
This offense constitutes a felony under the laws of the United States. The time for appeal has expired.
Noting that Article XI, Rule 11.07(4) of the Integration Rule, 32 F.S.A., provides that final judgments shall be considered as conclusive proof of guilt of the offense charged, The Florida Bar on March 6, 1972, petitioned for a Notice to Show Cause why appropriate disciplinary action should not be entered against respondent. This Court granted the petition and gave respondent leave to answer on or before April 24, 1972. We have received no response from the attorney within the time allotted.
In determining appropriate disciplinary action, we must be primarily guided by the welfare of the public and the legal profession. A study of the indictment lodged against respondent reveals that he was charged with bribery of an Internal Revenue Agent with intent to influence the Agent’s determination of the current tax liability of Robert Rosenbloom, respondent’s co-defendant under the indictment. Respondent pleaded guilty to the indictment, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of eighteen months, with six months to be spent in actual confinement, and the remainder suspended.
In our view bribery is a particularly noxious ethical failure under the Code of Professional Responsibility, because it not only involves a breach of the individual attorney’s public trust as a member of the legal profession, but also represents an attempt by the offending lawyer to induce a third party to engage in fraudulent and corrupt practices. Such conduct strikes at the very heart of the attorney’s responsibility to the public and profession. We are, therefore, not inclined to leniency in bribery matters, absent mitigating factors in the individual case. See The Florida Bar v. Craig, 238 So.2d 78 (Fla.1970). No such mitigating factors have been brought to our attention in the instant case.
Accordingly, it is the judgment of this Court that respondent, Edward G. Riccar-di, should be, and is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida.
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)…v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1968); The Florida Bar v. Abramson, 199 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1967). . The Florida Bar v. Scott, 197 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1967). . See, e. g., The Florida Bar v. Blalock, 325 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1976); The Florida Bar v. Riccardi, 264 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Beaver, 259 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1972). . In re The Florida Bar, 301 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1974). . The Florida Bar v. Thomson, 271 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1972); State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Ruskin, 126 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1961); S…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Rodriguez, 959 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2007)…ning of a client's property); Fla. Bar v. Snow, 436 So. 2d 48, 49 (Fla.1983) (suspending attorney who, in attempting to effect a favorable settlement in a civil case for his clients, obtained evidence by false representations); Fla. Bar v. Riccardi, 264 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1972) (disbarring attorney for bribing tax agent to influence the determination of tax liability of a third party). Thus, we disapprove the referee’s finding of this factor in mitigation. . Rodriguez argues that the language of the 1998 consen…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Wolis, 783 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2001)…where referee’s findings were “essentially identical to the facts alleged in the criminal indictment” upon which attorney had been found guilty, the findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record); Florida Bar v. Riccardi, 264 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla.1972) (determining discipline in light of indictment to which respondent had pled guilty). This competent, substantial evidence likewise supports the aggravators found by the referee and disputed by Wol-is. See Florida Bar v. Tauter, 776 So.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Craig, 238 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1970)