THE FLORIDA BAR. IN RE SAMUEL RUBIN
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 denied Samuel Rubin's petition for reinstatement to the practice of law, finding he failed to demonstrate rehabilitation after a 1974 suspension.
A suspended attorney seeking reinstatement bears the affirmative burden of demonstrating rehabilitation, and failure to meet this burden justifies denial of reinstatement.
[1] An attorney suspended from practice seeking reinstatement bears the affirmative burden of demonstrating rehabilitation to the court.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel Rubin was suspended from the practice of law for six months in 1974. He filed a petition for reinstatement in 1978, which was his second such p…
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 Reinstatement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court on Samuel Rubin’s petition for reinstatement, pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule 11.11, from a 1974 order suspending him from the practice of law for a period of six months. The Florida Bar v. Rubin, 289 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974). A previous petition for reinstatement filed by Rubin was denied in The Florida Bar Re: Petition of Rubin, 323 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1975). After hearings on the petition, the referee submitted his report recommending that reinstatement be denied, and The Florida Bar has now filed that report here with its recommendation that we affirm the referee. Rubin has filed a brief in support of his request for readmission to the Bar, which we accordingly treat as a petition for review of the referee’s report under Integration Rule 11.09. Our review of the record developed before the referee in this case leads us to conclude, as it did in the first reinstatement proceeding, that Rubin has failed to carry either his affirmative burden of demonstrating rehabilitation, In re Dawson, 131 So. 2d 472 (Fla.1961), or his burden of showing here that the referee’s report is “erroneous, unlawful, or unjustified”. Integration Rule 11.09(3)(e). Accordingly, the referee’s finding that Rubin is unfit to resume the practice of law is approved, and the petition for reinstatement is hereby denied. Rubin is directed to pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $302.50.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ENGLAND, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Petition of William B. Dawson, III, 131 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1961)
- THE Fla. BAR. Petition of Samuel Rubin For Reinstatement, 323 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1975)
- THE Florida BAR v. Rubin, 289 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)