Florida Bar v. Bauman

505 So. 2d 1326, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 186, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 1771
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 16, 1987
DocketNo. 63,229
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 So. 2d 1326 (Florida Bar v. Bauman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florida Bar v. Bauman, 505 So. 2d 1326, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 186, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 1771 (Fla. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and the uncontested report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

The Florida Bar charged respondent with engaging in unethical conduct, specifically, violation of article XI, Rule 11.02(3)(a), of the Integration Rule of the Florida Bar (commission of an act contrary to honesty, justice, and good morals), and Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law).

Respondent entered into a stipulation for a consent judgment based on the following admitted facts: In December, 1979, and January, 1980, respondent met with others on numerous occasions to discuss the feasibility of importing cocaine and cannabis. However, on January 19, 1980, respondent voluntarily renounced his participation in the scheme and prevented its commission by persuading all the others not to go forward with the plan.

Respondent agreed to and the referee approved the following discipline: A six-months’ suspension beginning May 1, 1987, and a requirement that he take and pass the professional responsibility portion of The Florida Bar examination and demonstrate proof of rehabilitation in accordance with the rule prior to reinstatement. In approving the consent judgment, the Bar and the referee considered a number of mitigating factors, including respondent’s strong sense of repentance and otherwise ethical practice of law. After receiving a supplemental brief on the appropriateness of the discipline, we approve the referee’s findings and recommendations.

Judgment for costs in the amount of $633.00 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

The Florida Bar v. Bauman
558 So. 2d 994 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
505 So. 2d 1326, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 186, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 1771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-bauman-fla-1987.