THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANK CLARK, III, 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 the Florida Supreme Court to suspend attorney Frank Clark III from practicing law following his federal conviction for transporting a stolen diamond in interstate commerce. The Court granted the suspension, finding that the felony conviction constituted conclusive proof of guilt under the Integration Rule, though the suspension would terminate if the underlying conviction were reversed on appeal.
A determination of guilt of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive proof of guilt for purposes of the Integration Rule and mandates suspension from the practice of law. The Court rejected Clark's request to stay proceedings based on his pending appeal, family hardship, and financial concerns, finding these did not constitute the good cause required by the Integration Rule.
[1] A felony conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive proof of guilt for the purposes of disciplinary rules governing attorneys.
[2] An attorney's felony conviction warrants suspension from the practice of law.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Determination or judgment of guilt of a member of The Florida Bar by a court of competent jurisdiction upon trial or plea of any crime or offense that is a felony under the laws of this state, or under the laws under which any other court making such determination or entering such judgment exercises its jurisdiction, shall be conclusive proof of the guilt of the offense charged for the purposes of these rules.”
Sets forth the controlling Integration Rule requiring automatic suspension upon felony conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Clark III was convicted on April 3, 1975, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of unlawfully, willfully, an…
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 Good Cause For Stay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Bar, pursuant to Rule 11.-07(3) of Article XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, petitions this Court to suspend Frank Clark, III, from the practice of law in Florida, alleging that Respondent was convicted on April 3, 1975, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and sentenced to six months, which prison sentence was suspended, and fined $7,500.00.
It appears from the record before us that Respondent has been convicted of unlawfully, willfully and knowingly transporting in interstate commerce a diamond weighing approximately 8.04 carats and set in a platinum ring, knowing that this diamond ring had been stolen, converted and taken by fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2314 and Section 2. This offense is a felony.
Respondent replies to the Petition for Suspension, pointing out that he has filed an appeal in his federal case and requesting this Court to stay the suspension proceedings until the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals hands down its decision. To support his position, Respondent submits that oral argument in his appeal is scheduled for the week of August 11, 1975; that he will suffer financial hardship by suspension; that his family will suffer in that his wife is in delicate health; and that the welfare of the public and of the legal profession would not best be served by his suspension at this particular stage of his New York case.
Petitioner replies that Respondent’s arguments do not constitute the good cause required by the Integration Rule to stay his suspension.1
Integration Rule 11.07(1) reads as follows :
“(1) Determination or judgment of guilt. Determination or judgment of guilt of a member of The Florida Bar by a court of competent jurisdiction upon trial or plea of any crime or offense that is a felony under the laws of this state, or under the laws under which any other court making such determination or entering such judgment exercises its jurisdiction, shall be conclusive proof of the guilt of the offense charged for the purposes of these rules. Upon such determination or entry of such judgment of guilt by any court of this state, the judge or the clerk thereof shall transmit a certified copy of such determination or judgment to the Clerk of this Court and to the Executive Director of The Florida Bar.” Without assuming any position as to what the Second Circuit Court should or may do with Respondent’s appeal, we grant the Petition for his suspension based on the above Rule. This suspension shall terminate should the criminal conviction be reversed by the appellate court.2 As suggested by The Florida Bar, this suspension order herein shall become effective 45 days from the effective date of this order, with the condition that Respondent shall not accept any new litigation; in this manner Respondent’s clients will be protected by the orderly conclusion of their pending matters.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., concurs in judgment.
. The Florida Bar v. Craig, 238 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1970).
. Rule 11.07(2) (c), Integration Rule.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Prior, 330 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1976)…is required by Rule 11.07(1). . The Florida Bar v. Smith, supra note 7 at 772. . Since 1965 the Court has considered 42 suspension cases. Eleven of these involved federal convictions during the pendency of an appeal. See The Florida Bar v. Clark, 323 So. 2d 579 (Fla., filed November 19, 1975) ; The Florida Bar v. Rothstein, Case No. 48,074 (Fla., filed November 7, 1975) ; The Florida Bar v. Ragano, supra note 8; The Florida Bar v. Smith, supra note 7; The Florida Bar v. Ferrer-Roo, Case No. 44,354 (Fla., f…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Clark, 359 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1978)…of these proceedings against the respondent in the amount of $14.50. It is so ordered. OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, HATCH-ETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ENGLAND, J., dissents. * Respondent was suspended November 19, 1975. The Florida Bar v. Clark, 323 So. 2d 579 (Fla.1975).…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Clark, 513 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1987)…(3), for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. The referee noted respondent’s past disciplinary record, including the fact that in 1975, he was suspended from the practice of law following his conviction of a felony. The Florida Bar v. Clark, 323 So. 2d 579 (Fla.1975). The referee noted further that, although notice was provided in the manner prescribed by the applicable rules, respondent failed to answer the complaint, appear at the hearing, or participate in the proceeding in any way. The referee rec…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Craig, 238 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1970)