THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GINO NEGRETTI, 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 and discipline against attorney Gino Negretti for neglecting client Francisco Valerio's legal representation in a litigation matter. The Florida Supreme Court approved the conditional guilty plea and imposed a thirty-day suspension, client notification requirements, and costs.
The Court approved Negretti's conditional guilty plea and imposed discipline consisting of a thirty-day suspension from the practice of law beginning June 1, 1977, with automatic reinstatement thereafter, a requirement to notify clients pursuant to the Integration Rule, and costs of $227.00 to be paid within thirty days.
[1] An attorney's failure to inform a client of a trial date and failure to appear at trial constitutes professional misconduct.
[2] An attorney's failure to inform a client of a hearing on a motion to tax costs and failure to appear at the hearing constitutes professional misconduct.
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 failed to inform Mr. Valerio of the trial date and failed himself to appear at trial in Mr. Valerio's behalf, resulting in a final judgment being entered against Mr. Valerio.”
Establishes the core professional neglect by the attorney in failing to communicate with and represent his client at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn October 1970, Negretti agreed to defend Francisco Valerio regarding potential litigation from an automobile accident. When litigation arose and a c…
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 Failure To Communicate With Client cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court on Petition for Approval of Conditional Guilty Plea and Entry of Final Order of Discipline.
The Florida Bar presented the petition stating:
1. During October 1970, Respondent, Gino Negretti, agreed to defend Francisco Valerio against possible litigation arising from an automobile accident.
2. Litigation involving the aforementioned accident did arise and a complaint naming Mr. Valerio as defendant was filed on July 20, 1972; such complaint and an accompanying summons being served on a date when Mr. Valerio was out of the country.
3. A default judgment was entered against Mr. Valerio, and he subsequently contacted .Respondent, who for a fee of $75, filed a motion to set aside the default alleging that Respondent was the attorney of record in the case.
4. The case was eventually set for trial, but Respondent failed to inform Mr. Valerio of the trial date and failed himself to appear at trial in Mr. Val-erio’s behalf, resulting in a final judgment being entered against Mr. Val-erio.
5. During February 1973, Respondent received a Motion to Tax Costs, filed by the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned action, and a notice of hearing on the Motion.
6. Respondent failed to advise Mr. Val-erio of the hearing on the Motion to Tax Costs, and failed to appear at the hearing on Mr. Valerio’s behalf.
7. Pursuant to a complaint against Respondent filed by Mr. Valerio, investigative proceedings were held on October 15, 1976, by the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee, Committee “J.”
8. On October 15, 1976, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee “J” found probable cause justifying further disciplinary proceedings against Respondent.
9. On February 7, 1977, staff counsel offered Respondent the opportunity to enter a conditional guilty plea for consent judgment and, pursuant to subsequent negotiations, Respondent agreed to do so, contingent on approval by the Supreme Court and the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. 10. Thereafter, staff counsel submitted a conditional guilty plea for consent judgment to Respondent.
11. At its March 1977 meeting, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar accepted Respondent’s conditional guilty plea subject to approval by the Supreme Court.
The Petition for Approval of Conditional Guilty Plea is granted, and it is ordered: 1. That the suspension from the practice of law for a period of thirty (30) days shall begin June 1, 1977, with automatic reinstatement at the end of said period;
2. That respondent shall notify his clients pursuant to Article XI, Rule 11.10(6) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar; and
3. That costs in the amount of Two Hundred Twenty-Seven Dollars ($227.00) are hereby taxed against Respondent, to be paid within thirty (30) days from this date.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND and KARL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colondro Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ly with this statute requires a reversal. As to the contempt conviction, although we have no difficulty in concluding that appellant’s conduct constituted direct criminal contempt, see Martinez v. State, 339 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), approved 346 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1977), we cannot agree that the trial court complied with the applicable rule. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 provides as follows: A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the c…
-
Floyd v. The Honorable E. Randolph Bentley, 496 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…522 (1968); Aaron v. State, 345 So. 2d 641 (Fla.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 868, 98 S.Ct. 208, 54 L.Ed.2d 146 (1977) (Aaron II); Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1973) (Aaron I); Martinez v. State, 339 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 346 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1977). Since the trial court has entered a “notice to restrict sentence” to the effect that the maximum sentence upon a finding of guilt will be 179 days, Floyd does not claim a constitutional right to a jury trial. Rather, he maintains that th…
-
Donnie Murrell v. State, 595 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…, 415 So. 2d 1359 (Fla.), rev. denied, 415 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1982); Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert, discharged, 344 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1977); Martinez v. State, 339 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), approved on other grounds, 346 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1977). See also Fabian v. State, 585 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). As I read the record, that is what the trial court believed counsel was saying. Further, a finding of contempt in such circumstances would be particularly appropriate here, w…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence