THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
RAY HILL, 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 Supreme Court approved a referee's recommendation to publicly reprimand an attorney for issuing a dishonored check for a witness fee and failing to pay an expert witness judgment, finding poor judgment and financial difficulties rather than intentional misconduct.
An attorney who issues a dishonored check for a witness fee left unpaid for over two months and fails to pay a reduced judgment to an expert witness may be publicly reprimanded for poor judgment and financial difficulties.
[1] An attorney's failure to pay witness fees and expert witness judgments, though not involving intentional misconduct, may result in public reprimand for poor judgment and…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 issued a $10 check for a witness fee that was dishonored due to insufficient funds and remained unpaid for more than two months; respondent…
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 Costs Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
The complaint against the respondent was framed in two counts. The first count charged that respondent had issued and delivered a check for a witness fee in the amount of Ten Dollars; that payment on the check was refused because of insufficient funds and was allowed to remain unpaid for more than two months after it had been dishonored. The second count alleged that the respondent had incurred an indebtedness to an expert witness for per diem, conference and court appearance; that the respondent had failed to pay the indebtedness; that it was reduced to judgment and remained unpaid.
The referee found the respondent cooperative and frank about the charges against him and stated that he had openly admitted the material facts alleged. He opined that respondent had not been guilty of any intentional misconduct but had “exercised poor judgment and experienced financial difficulties.”
The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty on both counts and recommended a public reprimand.
More than sixty days have elapsed since the report of the referee was filed with this Court and no petition for review has been filed pursuant to the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the recommendation of the referee be and is hereby approved, this opinion to serve as a public reprimand, and respondent is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Davis, 361 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1978)…uttering of worthless checks. In re Gorman, 299 So. 2d 24 [*162] (Fla.1974); In re Hill, 298 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1974); The Florida Bar v. Thomson, 271 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Kelly, 269 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Hill, 265 So. 2d 698 (Fla.1972); The Florida Bar v. Parsons, 238 So. 2d 644 (Fla.1970); The Florida Bar v. Dingle, 235 So. 2d 479 (Fla.1970); The Florida Bar v. Budzinki, 217 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1968); The Florida Bar v. Charles, 201 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1967); The Florida Bar v…1 / 2
-
The Fla. BAR. In re Ray Hill, 298 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1974)…than two decades. “8. Respondent’s problem with alcohol has affected his ability to handle the financial aspects of his law practice in a professional manner. “9. Neither of the checks mentioned in paragraph 3 were involved in the case reported at 265 So. 2d 698, which case likewise involved this Respondent and had rather similar facts. “10. Respondent has not sought or received psychiatric assistance for his problem with alcohol; but Respondent was at the time of the hearings in this proceeding regularly…1 / 2