IN RE: CHARGES OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AGAINST LEON L. STOLLER, ATTORNEY AT LAW. LEON L. STOLLER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 upheld the disbarring of attorney Leon L. Stoller by the Circuit Court of Dade County for multiple counts of false swearing and unprofessional conduct. The court rejected Stoller's arguments that the acts did not constitute grounds for disbarment and that insufficient evidence supported the charges.
Yes, the acts constitute grounds for disbarment, and the evidence is sufficient to support the charges. The court affirmed the lower court's disbarment order and permanent injunction against practicing law in Florida.
“Do the acts charged constitute grounds for disbarment, and (2) Is the evidence sufficient to prove the charges and uphold the order of disbarment.”
Sets forth the two legal questions presented on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStoller was charged with twelve counts: six counts of false swearing related to the case Weinstein v. State, and six counts of unprofessional conduct …
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 False Swearing cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Dade / County disbarring appellant from the practice of law and *865further enjoining him from practice of law in all the courts of this State. The charges against him were embraced in twelve counts, six of which relate to false swearing and the other six relate to unprofessional conduct. He was found guilty on all counts.
Two questions are argued, viz: (1) Do the acts charged constitute grounds for disbarment, and (2) Is the evidence sufficient to prove the charges and uphold the order of disbarment.
Counts one to six inclusive have to do with false swearing and refer to evidence relating to the case of Weinstein, et al., v. State, 151 Fla. 287, 9 So. (2nd) 710. Counts seven to twelve inclusive have to do with (1) unprofessional conduct in relation to appellant’s connection with an alleged divorce mill in Dade County, (2) to his securing the signature to a certain deed by a party who was not present but was in fact out of the State at the time, (3) to his concealment of á'ssets in order to defeat an execution, (4) to his making certain bankruptcy papers and collecting a fee therefor which he did not report, and (5) the making of an application for homestead exemption which was not bona fide.
As to the acts charged, we think they are simple to support disbarment; in fact if the bar as such was no more circumspect in its conduct than- the appellant is charged with being, there would be no basis whatever on which the public could trust it or indulge any respect for it.
As to the evidence in support of the charges, it is true that there are some conflicts in it but the decided weight of the evidence supports the finding of the lower court. The Circuit Court Commission of Dade County investigated charges one to six against appellant and recommended that he be brought before the court for disbarment. Both the court and the commission found that appellant’s conduct was reprehensible and that he was unworthy of the trusts imposed in him.
Under the well settled rule of this Court, we do not feel authorized to disturb the finding of the trial court so his judgment is affirmed on authority of Lambdin v. State, 150 Fla. 814, 9 So. (2nd) 192.
*866Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Stoller, 160 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1948)…[*770] TERRELL, J: In May, 1944, charges of unprofessional conduct were preferred against Leon Stoller resulting in his disbarment. The order of disbarment was affirmed by this court in Stoller v. State, 154 Fla. 864, 19 So. (2nd) 312. In May, 1947, pursuant to Section 8, Rule C of the rules of this court, he applied to the Circuit Court of Dade County for reinstatement. His application was heard en banc with the result that two judges recommended that he be not…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. The Fla. BAR v. Grant, 85 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1956)…te disciplinary action would be fully warranted. A few of the cases involving charges of similar misconduct wherein this court approved disciplinary action against the offending attorney are: In re Harrell, 156 Fla. 327, 23 So. 2d 92; In re Stoller, 154 Fla. 864, 19 So. 2d 312, 313; Weinstein v. State, 151 Fla. 287, 9 So. 2d 710. The respondent has filed a verified as well as unverified motion to dismiss and an answer, all addressed to the amended complaint (which for the remainder of this opinion will be…
Authorities Cited
- Lambdin v. State, 150 Fla. 814 (Fla. 1942)
- Weinstein v. State, 151 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1942)