THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOSEPH C. VALANTIEJUS, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1978-02-09
No. 52191
ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
355 So. 2d 425 Florida Supreme Court (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Bar disciplined attorney Joseph C. Valantiejus for violations of the Code of Professional Conduct, specifically for failing to properly perform his duties as a guardian and failing to promptly handle clients' business. The Florida Supreme Court suspended him from practice for twelve months.


Holding

The court found Valantiejus guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 6-101(A)(3) as charged in Counts I and II of the Bar's complaint. The court found insufficient evidence on Count III regarding intentional false statements to a judicial officer. Valantiejus was suspended from the practice of law for twelve months.


Headnotes

[1] A lawyer's failure to properly perform duties as a guardian and failure to promptly handle clients' business constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Conduct.

[2] A lawyer's consistent disregard for a ward's needs and pleas from other parties to take immediate action supports findings of professional misconduct.

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

Key Quotes

“the record proves by clear and convincing evidence that Valantiejus failed to perform his duties as a guardian, that he consistently ignored the ward's needs, and ignored the pleas of other parties to take immediate action”

Establishes the court's factual finding supporting the disciplinary violation

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Valantiejus was charged with three counts: failure to properly perform guardian duties, failure to promptly handle clients' business, and failure to f…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is a disciplinary action brought by The Florida Bar against one of its members, Joseph C. Valantiejus. Our jurisdiction is authorized by Article V, Section 15, Florida Constitution.

The Florida Bar filed its Complaint in March, 1975, charging Valantiejus with (1) failure to properly perform his duties as a guardian, (2) failure to promptly handle clients’ business, and (3) failure to fully advise a judicial officer, when questioned, regarding his delay in bringing these legal matters to a close.

The Florida Bar, through its Referee, had great difficulty advising Respondent of the charges against him. On several occasions, judicial officers either telephoned or wrote Valantiejus concerning the matters here under consideration. In spite of mailings to both his business and home addresses, the respondent failed to answer. This court ordered its Clerk to have a copy of the charges and Referee’s Report served upon the respondent by mail. On November 21, 1977, the respondent received a copy of the charges, Referee’s Report (with recommendations), and a letter from this court advising him that he could reply within 15 days. No response has been filed.

Without a detailed account of the evidence, it is sufficient to state that the record proves by clear and convincing evidence that Valantiejus failed to perform his duties as a guardian, that he consistently ignored the ward’s needs, and ignored the pleas of other parties to take immediate action. The pleas by non-parties included a direct conversation in which a circuit judge urged Valantiejus to take speedy action. In nine other cases the pattern was the same. Although urged to do so by the parties and other interested persons, he failed to properly perform. We find the evidence sufficient (clear and convincing) to show a violation of the Code of Professional Conduct as charged in Counts I and II of the Bar’s complaint. The Florida Bar v. Rayman, 238 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1970), and The Florida Bar v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1968).

The Referee found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the Bar’s charges in Count III of the complaint, that respondent made an intentionally false or incomplete statement to a judicial officer. We also find the evidence insufficient on this point.

The respondent is guilty as charged by the Bar’s Complaint in Counts I and II thereof in that he did violate Disciplinary Rules 1 — 102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 6-101(A)(3).

Accordingly, Joseph C. Valantiejus is suspended from the practice of law in the State of Florida for a period of twelve months, beginning February 9, and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation and pay the costs of these proceedings in the sum of $358.60.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 463 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1985)
    …ese violations. Respondent’s misconduct, when viewed in conjunction with his disciplinary history, clearly requires a 90-day suspension from the practice of law. See The Florida Bar v. Hunt, 417 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1982); The Florida Bar v. Valantiejus, 355 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1978). I also believe that a three-year probationary period should be imposed after the respondent is reinstated. ALDERMAN and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.…
  • THE Florida BAR v. Lopez, 406 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1981)
    …is conclusion is corroborated by each of the four witnesses’ testimony and is reasonable. The evidence presented meets the burden placed on complainant to provide clear and convincing proof of respondent’s misconduct. The Florida Bar v. Valantiejus, 355 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1978); The Florida Bar v. Quick, 279 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1973); The Florida Bar v. Schonbrun, 257 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1971); The Florida Bar v. Rayman, 238 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1970). We therefore affirm the referee’s finding that respondent violated his attorn…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw