THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GEORGE W. PROVOST, 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 sought review of a referee's recommendation to suspend attorney George W. Provost for one year due to misuse of escrow funds. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the suspension and clarified that proof of rehabilitation is now mandatory for all suspensions of three months or longer under the amended Integration Rules effective December 1, 1972.
The one-year suspension is proper and should be imposed. Proof of rehabilitation is mandatory for reinstatement because the suspension exceeds three months and the order is rendered after the December 1, 1972 effective date of the amended Integration Rule requiring such proof.
[1] Misuse of escrow account funds constitutes improper conduct warranting disciplinary action.
[2] A one-year suspension is a proper disciplinary measure for misuse of escrow funds.
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“Provost was found guilty by the referee of misuse of the funds of an escrow account which he established with the proceeds of a real estate transaction to accomplish the paying off of an existing mortgage.”
Establishes the core disciplinary violation at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProvost established an escrow account with over $4,000 in proceeds from a real estate transaction to pay off an existing mortgage. He misused part of …
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 Proof Of Rehabilitation cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Bar discipline case, we have for review on petition of The Florida Bar, a recommendation of a one-year suspension arising from a finding of improper conduct on the part of respondent, George W. Provost.
Provost was found guilty by the referee of misuse of the funds of an escrow account which he established with the proceeds of a real estate transaction to accomplish the paying off of an existing mortgage. Provost admitted that he had used part of the over $4,000.00 held in escrow for his own purposes, but the record shows that the mortgage was paid in full by Provost four months after the closing.
The referee found Provost not guilty of two other charges raised in the complaint against him, and the Bar does not dispute those findings. Provost does not protest the finding of guilt on the one count. Neither Provost nor the Bar protests the one-year suspension, and after a complete review of the record, we believe the recommendation of a one-year suspension is proper.
The one issue raised by the Bar is the absence of a requirement of proof of rehabilitation prior to Provost’s reinstatement in the Bar. Art. XI, Rule 11.10(3), Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A., has been amended effective December 1, 1972, to require that proof of rehabilitation be mandatory with any suspension of three months or more. As the order of discipline by this Court is being rendered subsequent to December 1, 1972, the requirement of proof of rehabilitation automatically attaches.
It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the respondent, George W. Provost, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year with proof of rehabilitation being required, and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $62.00.
And it is further ordered that if Provost files his petition for reinstatement with the Bar at least three months prior to the run*226ning of his suspension, the Bar must make its objections to such reinstatement known to this Court prior to the running of the suspension period.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Provost, 323 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1975)…01 (A)(1), (A) (2), and (A)(3). The prior disciplinary history of the respondent reflects that he received a private reprimand on March 20, 1964, and was suspended from the practice of law for one year on March 23, 1973. The Florida Bar v. Provost, 275 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1973). The Referee recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years- with proof of rehabilitation being required, and that he pay the costs of these proceedings. We have reviewed the record in…