Florida Bar v. Rodman

Supreme Court of Florida

Florida Bar v. Rodman

474 So. 2d 1176, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 403, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3719

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 1985

DocketNo. 64996

StatusPublished

This text of 474 So. 2d 1176 (Florida Bar v. Rodman) 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. Rodman, 474 So. 2d 1176, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 403, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3719 (Fla. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Rodman, a member of the bar, charging him with wrongfully failing to turn funds over to a client. Rodman did not respond to the complaint and did not [1177]*1177appear at the referee’s hearing. The referee recommended finding him guilty of violating disciplinary rules 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to a client) and article XI, rule 11.02(4) (trust account rule). As to discipline, the referee recommended that Rodman be disbarred

* and that he not be eligible for readmission until he reimburses his client for $11,529.62 plus interest at twelve percent per annum.

Rodman requested an extension of time to respond to the referee’s report and recommendations, which this Court granted. No response has been forthcoming, however, and the bar has not contested the referee’s report. After reviewing this record, we find the referee’s recommendations to be amply supported and adopt them as our own.

Therefore, Mark H. Rodman is hereby disbarred, effective immediately. If he seeks reinstatement, it will not be allowed unless his former client has been reimbursed in addition to the other requirements for readmission. Judgment for costs in the amount of $585.97 is hereby entered against Rodman, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

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

The referee stated: "Although the Referee realizes that disbarment should be reserved only for extremely serious cases, it is the undersigned's belief that stealing a client’s funds warrants disbarment.”

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

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Rodman, a member of the bar, charging him with wrongfully failing to turn funds over to a client. Rodman did not respond to the complaint and did not [1177]*1177appear at the referee’s hearing. The referee recommended finding him guilty of violating disciplinary rules 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to a client) and article XI, rule 11.02(4) (trust account rule). As to discipline, the referee recommended that Rodman be disbarred

* and that he not be eligible for readmission until he reimburses his client for $11,529.62 plus interest at twelve percent per annum.

Rodman requested an extension of time to respond to the referee’s report and recommendations, which this Court granted. No response has been forthcoming, however, and the bar has not contested the referee’s report. After reviewing this record, we find the referee’s recommendations to be amply supported and adopt them as our own.

Therefore, Mark H. Rodman is hereby disbarred, effective immediately. If he seeks reinstatement, it will not be allowed unless his former client has been reimbursed in addition to the other requirements for readmission. Judgment for costs in the amount of $585.97 is hereby entered against Rodman, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

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

The referee stated: "Although the Referee realizes that disbarment should be reserved only for extremely serious cases, it is the undersigned's belief that stealing a client’s funds warrants disbarment.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 1176, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 403, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-rodman-fla-1985.