Florida Bar v. Neale

432 So. 2d 50, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 2354
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 19, 1983
DocketNo. 61637
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 432 So. 2d 50 (Florida Bar v. Neale) 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. Neale, 432 So. 2d 50, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 2354 (Fla. 1983).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this disciplinary action the referee has recommended that the respondent, William J. Neale, be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) of The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. Neither The Florida Bar nor Neale sought review of his finding or disciplinary recommendation.

In support of his conclusions, the referee found, among other things:

An attorney accepting a retainer must take appropriate and reasonable action to further his client’s best interests, to do so promptly and to keep his client advised at all times. Respondent’s actions involve indifference and a conscious disregard for the responsibility owed to the client.

The referee properly stated an attorney’s duty; the record supports his conclusion of a breach of that duty.

After referring to prior disciplinary actions against Neale,1 the referee, in recommending discipline, stated:

There is no evidence of a corruptive motive. Respondent is 60 years of age, has been a member of The Florida Bar 33 years, his health is not good. Respondent’s problem has heen neglect and failure to communicate.
I have taken into consideration all facts, including prior disciplinary matters, and recommend 60 days suspension, three years probation, to include conducting a report of status of all his cases on a monthly basis.

We adopt the referee’s recommendation for discipline. We accordingly find that William J. Neale is found to have breached Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby suspended from the practice of law for sixty days, and thereafter shall be on probation for three years under the supervision of The Florida Bar. The suspension shall be effective June 20, 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. A condition of probation shall be a monthly report of the status of all of his cases. In addition, he shall pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $1,090.71 within thirty days of the filing of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

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

Related

Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Dumaine
550 So. 2d 1197 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1989)
In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Witteman
737 P.2d 1268 (Washington Supreme Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
432 So. 2d 50, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 2354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-neale-fla-1983.