THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
E. PAUL BRIGMAN, 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 held attorney E. Paul Brigman in contempt for violating a six-month suspension order by failing to remove his office sign, notify clients of suspension, and discontinue use of attorney letterhead. The Court increased his suspension to one year based on the contemptuous conduct.
The Court found Brigman in contempt of court for willfully violating the suspension order by failing to remove his attorney sign, notify clients, and discontinue attorney letterhead use. The Court increased the original six-month suspension to one year from the date of the opinion, with reinstatement only upon proof of rehabilitation, and directed Brigman to pay all costs of the supplemental proceeding.
[1] An attorney who fails to comply with a court's suspension order, including failing to remove signage, notify clients, and discontinue the use of letterhead, may be held i…
[2] Ignorance of a court's suspension order and applicable rules is not a defense when an attorney fails to read or open correspondence regarding the order.
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“suspended Mr. Brigman from the practice of law for 'a period of six (6) months and thereafter until he shall satisfactorily prove his rehabilitation in a reinstatement proceeding.'”
The original suspension order terms that Brigman violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrigman was suspended from the practice of law for six months by Florida Supreme Court order on January 15, 1975. After suspension, Brigman violated t…
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 Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This supplemental proceeding has been brought by The Florida Bar to enforce our suspension order of January IS, 1975.1 In that order we approved the recommendation of the Referee2 and suspended Mr. Brigman from the practice of law for “ ‘a period of six (6) months and thereafter until he shall satisfactorily prove his rehabilitation in a reinstatement proceeding.’ ”
On motion of The Florida Bar, we issued an order to Mr. Brigman on June 3, 1975, commanding him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of this Court for violation of our suspension order. Response has been filed, and we find the respondent Brigman admittedly has violated the terms of the suspension order in that he (1) failed to remove a sign lettered “E. PAUL BRIGMAN, Attorney at Law” from his office building following his suspension, (2) failed to give notice to his clients of his suspension from the practice of law, and evidence of such action to staff counsel of The Florida Bar, a violation of Integration Rule 11.10(6) of The Florida Bar, and (3) failed to discontinue the use of letterhead stationery identifying himself as an attorney-at-law following his suspension.
The respondent Brigman pleads ignorance of these requirements, asserting that he admittedly failed to read the Court’s suspension order, the applicable Integration Rules of The Florida Bar referred to therein, and correspondence from the disciplinary staff of The Florida Bar seeking compliance with the suspension order. To establish this lack of knowledge, the respondent’s response to our order to show cause attaches as an exhibit an unopened certified mail letter from staff counsel of The Florida Bar, which the respondent admits was received in his office but not opened. Respondent claims that he first read the suspension order after we issued an order to show cause in this supplemental proceeding. We find the respondent Brigman has ignored and failed to comply with this Court’s suspension order, and we hereby adjudicate him to be in contempt of this Court.
We reconsider the disciplinary portion of our initial suspension order because of the contemptuous conduct of the respondent. We hereby supplement its provisions by suspending respondent Brigman from the practice of law for one year from the date of this opinion and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation in reinstatement proceedings.
Respondent is further directed to pay all costs necessary for this supplemental proceeding, and we reserve jurisdiction to establish the amount of the costs therefor. We further direct that a copy of this order be personally served on the respondent by an officer authorized by law to serve process.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J„ and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. . Florida Bar v. Brigman, 307 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1975).
. Id. at 162.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Breed, 368 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1979)….10(3). The Court finds that Breed is in contempt of court for his failure to abide by this Court’s orders and rules governing the conduct of suspended attorneys. See The Florida Bar v. Abagis, 327 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1976); The Florida Bar v. Brigman, 322 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1975). The adjudication of contempt is withheld on condition that the aforesaid sign be removed within 15 days from the filing of this order and that Breed refrain from using letterhead stationery identifying him as an attorney at law. It is…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Brigman, 405 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1981)…showing as evidence an unopened certified mail letter from staff counsel at the Florida Bar, admittedly received but never opened. The Court found him in contempt and suspended him for one year from the date of the new order. Florida Bar v. Brigman, 322 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1975). The referee found respondent guilty of violating the disciplinary rules and integration rule contained in count two on the basis of the felony conviction. Florida Bar v. Newman, 215 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1968). Based on this finding and the r…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Ellis S. Simring, 612 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1993)…Court’s order. The referee correctly found the respondent guilty of contempt for allowing his name to remain on the door without any designation of his suspended status. See The Fla. Bar v. Breed, 378 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1979); The Fla. Bar v. Brigman, 322 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1975). The referee also found the respondent guilty of contempt for sending legal letters to a client without any designation of his suspended status. The record shows that the respondent represented Mildred Krause on a personal injury matter…1 / 4
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Brigman, 307 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1975)