Florida Bar v. Penny

Supreme Court of Florida

Florida Bar v. Penny

164 So. 2d 5, 1964 Fla. LEXIS 2694

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1964

DocketNo. 33312

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 164 So. 2d 5 (Florida Bar v. Penny) 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. Penny, 164 So. 2d 5, 1964 Fla. LEXIS 2694 (Fla. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For various acts of professional misconduct a referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. The Board of Governors approved the findings of guilty but entered a judgment of permanent disbarment. Under Integration Rule 11.10, 31 F.S.A., this judgment would prevent the respondent from ever being reinstated to membership in The Florida Bar. Implicit in such a conclusion is a finding that the respondent has demonstrated that it is unlikely that he can rehabilitate himself sufficiently to return to the profession as an honorable member. Our study of the record leads us to conclude that respondent is not beyond rehabilitation. We feel that the door should be left ajar at least to afford him an opportunity to accomplish this desirable objective. The judgment of permanent disbarment is not approved. However, the findings of guilt are approved and the respondent, Fred M. Penny, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Florida. Integration Rule 11.07(5). He is further ordered to pay the costs in the amount of $422.40 as assessed by the Board of Governors.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, TPIORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

For various acts of professional misconduct a referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. The Board of Governors approved the findings of guilty but entered a judgment of permanent disbarment. Under Integration Rule 11.10, 31 F.S.A., this judgment would prevent the respondent from ever being reinstated to membership in The Florida Bar. Implicit in such a conclusion is a finding that the respondent has demonstrated that it is unlikely that he can rehabilitate himself sufficiently to return to the profession as an honorable member. Our study of the record leads us to conclude that respondent is not beyond rehabilitation. We feel that the door should be left ajar at least to afford him an opportunity to accomplish this desirable objective. The judgment of permanent disbarment is not approved. However, the findings of guilt are approved and the respondent, Fred M. Penny, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Florida. Integration Rule 11.07(5). He is further ordered to pay the costs in the amount of $422.40 as assessed by the Board of Governors.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, TPIORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 2d 5, 1964 Fla. LEXIS 2694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-penny-fla-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack