EDWARD M. PARRISH, APPELLANT,

v.

GEORGE GALLUP AND OPHELIA GALLUP, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (20 total)

• Pantori, Inc. v. Stephenson, 384 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …itself is not the “appropriate disciplinary body.” Thus, it appears that the supreme court alone has the power to discipline attorneys by the grant of exclusive jurisdiction. Florida Bar v. McCain, 330 So. 2d 712 (Fla.1976); Application of Harper, 84 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1956). The circuit and district courts have been ousted of whatever inherent disciplinary power over attorneys they may have previously held. State v. Revels, 109 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1959). Therefore, these courts now have only such power as has been…
• State of Fla. ex rel. Jack M. Turner v. Earle, 295 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1974)
  …spension of disciplinary procedures designed simply to ensure that such rights and privileges shall not he exercised by one who has shown himself unfit to practice law, and not to penalize or punish the offending member. Application of Harper, Fla., 84 So. 2d 700, 702, 54 A.L.R.2d 1272.”…
• THE Florida BAR v. Alphonse Della-Donna, 583 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1989)
  …been recognized for many years, “[disciplinary proceedings against attorneys are instituted in the public interest and to preserve the purity of the courts. No private rights except those of the accused attorney are involved.” Application of Harper, 84 So. 2d 700, 702 (Fla.1956); Winn, 208 So. 2d at 810-11; In re Keenan, 287 Mass. 577, 583, 192 N.E. 65, 68 (1934). See also State ex rel. Kehoe v. McRae, 49 Fla. 389, 394-95, 38 So. 605, 607 (1905) (“disbarment proceedings are not designed as a penalty or punis…