Florida Bar v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Florida

Florida Bar v. Johnson

439 So. 2d 216, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3006

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Florida Bar v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 11 Fla. L. Weekly 288 →

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 6, 1983·No. No. 62814·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before us on the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of the referee recommending that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6), for forging his wife’s signature to three promissory notes and making false financial statements to a bank. The referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation as provided [217]*217in Integration Rule 11.10(4). Neither the Bar nor the respondent has petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

We agree with the findings and recommendations of the referee. The suspension shall be effective November 7, 1983, thereby giving respondent time to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients, and it is ordered that respondent shall not accept any new business. Costs are assessed against respondent in the amount of $587.42.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, 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 us on the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of the referee recommending that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6), for forging his wife’s signature to three promissory notes and making false financial statements to a bank. The referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation as provided [217]*217in Integration Rule 11.10(4). Neither the Bar nor the respondent has petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

We agree with the findings and recommendations of the referee. The suspension shall be effective November 7, 1983, thereby giving respondent time to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients, and it is ordered that respondent shall not accept any new business. Costs are assessed against respondent in the amount of $587.42.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

Florida Bar v. Johnson, 439 So. 2d 216, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3006 (Fla. 1983).

Pincite

439 So. 2d 216 (Florida Bar v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.