Florida Bar v. Hall

Supreme Court of Florida

Florida Bar v. Hall

521 So. 2d 1117, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 215, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 374, 1988 WL 23517

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1988

DocketNo. 70951

StatusPublished

This text of 521 So. 2d 1117 (Florida Bar v. Hall) 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. Hall, 521 So. 2d 1117, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 215, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 374, 1988 WL 23517 (Fla. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of a referee’s report finding professional misconduct. The respondent, James F. Hall, does not challenge the report.

In the course of respondent’s representation of the purchasers in a real estate transaction, a check was sent to respondent’s office for the purpose of paying a deposit to the seller. The check was misplaced, but respondent failed to inform his clients of the fact, with the result that a contractual deadline expired and the transaction was cancelled. The check was never negotiated so the clients lost nothing except the benefit of the bargain. For neglecting a matter entrusted to him and for conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law, the referee recommends that respondent receive a public reprimand.

We approve the referee’s report. We hereby reprimand attorney James F. Hall.

The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against James F. Hall for costs in the amount for $574.95.

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

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of a referee’s report finding professional misconduct. The respondent, James F. Hall, does not challenge the report.

In the course of respondent’s representation of the purchasers in a real estate transaction, a check was sent to respondent’s office for the purpose of paying a deposit to the seller. The check was misplaced, but respondent failed to inform his clients of the fact, with the result that a contractual deadline expired and the transaction was cancelled. The check was never negotiated so the clients lost nothing except the benefit of the bargain. For neglecting a matter entrusted to him and for conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law, the referee recommends that respondent receive a public reprimand.

We approve the referee’s report. We hereby reprimand attorney James F. Hall.

The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against James F. Hall for costs in the amount for $574.95.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 So. 2d 1117, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 215, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 374, 1988 WL 23517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-hall-fla-1988.