Florida Bar v. Mayo

439 So. 2d 888, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3200
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 13, 1983
DocketNo. 62085
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 439 So. 2d 888 (Florida Bar v. Mayo) 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. Mayo, 439 So. 2d 888, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3200 (Fla. 1983).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court on the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of the referee recommending that respondent John N. Mayo be suspended from the practice of law for one year. Neither the Bar nor respondent has petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const.

Respondent was charged with making a payment for services rendered by means of a check that was returned for insufficient funds: Respondent filed no responsive pleadings and did not appear at the final hearing though he received notice. Since no answers or objections to the Bar’s requests for admissions were filed, the referee deemed the matters admitted. The referee found that respondent issued a check for $800.00 to Richard Lord and Associates for services provided. The check was returned for insufficient funds and later attempts at collection were unsuccessful even though respondent gave assurance that he would pay. The referee concluded that respondent had violated Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.02(3)(a) and the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4). The referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year with reinstatement contingent upon proof of rehabilitation and restitution to Richard Lord and Associates. We adopt the referee’s findings and approve his recommendations.

We therefore suspend John N. Mayo from the practice of law in Florida for a period of one year from the date of this order under the above-stated conditions. Costs in the amount of $468.10 are assessed against respondent.

Jt, ⅛ go ordered.

BOYD, ÓVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which OVERTON and Mc-DONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, Acting Chief Justice, dissents with an opinion.

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

Related

The Florida Bar v. Solomon
589 So. 2d 286 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
439 So. 2d 888, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-mayo-fla-1983.