THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
LOUIS VERNELL, 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 approval of a conditional guilty plea by attorney Louis Vernell to Count III of a February 1973 disciplinary complaint in exchange for a public reprimand and cost assessment. The Florida Supreme Court approved the conditional guilty plea and issued a public reprimand as the disciplinary sanction.
The Florida Supreme Court approved the conditional guilty plea and issued a public reprimand as the final disciplinary sanction, with execution directed to issue for costs against respondent in the amount of $454.00.
[1] A conditional guilty plea by an attorney, subject to approval by the Supreme Court, may be accepted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors of The Florida Ba…
[2] The Supreme Court's approval of a conditional guilty plea by an attorney constitutes a public reprimand.
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“respondent tendered a conditional guilty plea to Count III of the February 8th complaint, subject to approval by the Supreme Court, in exchange for the imposition of a public reprimand and the taxation of all costs”
Establishes the terms of the agreed discipline negotiated between the attorney and the Bar
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA three-count formal complaint was filed against respondent attorney Vernell on February 8, 1973, followed by a one-count complaint on August 8, 1973.…
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 Conditional Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on the Petition of the Florida Bar for approval of a conditional guilty plea and entry of final order of discipline.
A formal three-count complaint was filed against respondent by the Florida Bar on February 8, 1973; a formal one-count complaint was similarly filed on August 8, 1973. Subsequently, pursuant to the provisions of Integration Rule 11.13(6) (b),1 respondent tendered a conditional guilty plea to Count III of the February 8th complaint, subject to approval by the Supreme Court, in exchange for the imposition of a public reprimand and the taxation of all costs.
The Executive Committee of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar accepted the conditional guilty plea on November 14, 1973, subject to the approval by this Court.
We hereby approve the conditional guilty plea, and the filing of this opinion shall constitute a public reprimand, and execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against respondent in the amount of $454.00.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN, DEKLE and CARLTON (Retired), JJ., concur. . Integration Rule 11.13(6) (b) provides, (6) Consent judgment.
“(b) After Appointment of Referee and Bar Counsel. If an accused attorney states his or her desire to plead guilty to a grievance committee report or a filed complaint after a referee and Bar counsel are appointed, then Bar counsel, with the approval of staff counsel (or assistant staff counsel) and the designated reviewer, may advise the accused attorney of the discipline he will receive if a written plea of guilty is entered. No recommended discipline will be conveyed to the accused attorney unless the Bar counsel, staff counsel, and the designated reviewer are in complete agreement and that agreement is reduced to writing and made a part of the file. If an accused attorney tenders a plea of guilty in exchange for a stated form of punishment, and Bar counsel, staff counsel, and the designated reviewer cannot agree on acceptance or rejection of the conditional guilty plea, then the tendered plea will be referred to the Board of Governors for a final decision. Any proposed consent judgment more severe than a private reprimand shall before acceptance by The Florida Bar be submitted by The Florida Bar to the Supreme Court for approval.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Vernell, 374 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1979)…d Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5), and 5-105(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. . One was a private reprimand of November 20, 1964, and the second was a public reprimand given by this Court on June 3, 1974. See The Florida Bar v. Vernell, 296 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1974).…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Vernell, 721 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1998)…da Bar v. Reed, 644 So. 2d 1355, 1357 (Fla. 1994). Vernell has a long history of ethical violations: He was privately reprimanded in 1964 (Fla. Bar Case No. 64-00197, November 20, 1964), and publicly reprimanded in 1974. See Florida Bar v. Vernell, 296 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1974). He was suspended for six months in 1979 for convictions of failure to file income tax returns for five years and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Florida Bar v. Vernell, 374 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1979). He was suspen…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Vernell, 502 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1987)…ereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue. It is so ordered. MCDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. . The Florida Bar v. Vernell, 296 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1974). . The Florida Bar v. Vernell, 374 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1979).…