Florida Bar v. Maas
This text of 510 So. 2d 291 (Florida Bar v. Maas) 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.
Opinions
This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding in which the referee found the respondent, Roger R. Maas, guilty of professional misconduct for neglect of a legal matter and recommended the imposition of a suspension for a fixed period of four months and thereafter until he shall prove rehabilitation, together with restitution to his client in the total amount of $11,300. The respondent has petitioned for review, contending primarily that the discipline is too [292]*292harsh under the circumstances of this case. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
The respondent was hired as the attorney for an estate. The referee found the respondent “was incompetent to handle that matter” and failed to take any action to represent the estate though repeatedly contacted by the interested parties, resulting in a long delay in closing the estate. In recommending imposition of a four-month suspension, restitution to his client of $11,-300, and the payment of the costs of this proceeding, the referee also took into account that respondent inconvenience caused his client and was apparently going through a very difficult personal period of his life.” The record also reflects that the grievance committee recommended a private reprimand.
Given the circumstances of this case, we find the appropriate discipline should be a public reprimand, restitution to the client in accordance with the referee’s recommendation, a two-year probationary period, and payment of the costs of this proceeding. This discipline is consistent with prior single incident neglect cases, given the mitigating factors in this cause.
Accordingly, we approve the findings of the referee that the respondent be found guilty of the following violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
It is so ordered.
Because these proceedings progressed through the filing of the referee’s reports under the former Integration Rule and Code of Professional Responsibility, references herein will be to the former rule and code. See The Florida Bar, re Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 494 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla.1986).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
510 So. 2d 291, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 421, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 2136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-maas-fla-1987.