In re The Florida Bar

262 So. 2d 857, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3775
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 31, 1972
DocketNo. 41902
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 262 So. 2d 857 (In re The Florida Bar) 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
In re The Florida Bar, 262 So. 2d 857, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3775 (Fla. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the petition of The Florida Bar for amendment of Articles II and XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A.

The requested amendment of Rule 11.-01(4) was as follows:

“Suspension for Incapacity not related to Misconduct. Whenever an attorney who has not been adjudged incompetent is unqualified to continue the practice of law because of physical or mental illness, incapacity or other infirmity, he may be suspended from the practice of law for such reason even though no misconduct on his part is alleged or proved. Actions with a view to suspension or reinstatement following such suspension under this section, as well as resignations for reasons stated in this section shall be processed under Article XI in the same manner as proceedings involving acts of misconduct.”

We have changed this rule so that it will read as follows:

“Suspension for Incapacity not related to Misconduct. Whenever an attorney who has not been adjudged incompetent is incapable of practicing law because of physical or mental illness, incapacity or other infirmity, he may be placed upon an inactive list and shall refrain from the practice of law for such reason even though no misconduct on his part is alleged or proved. Proceedings with a view of placing an attorney on the inactive list or reinstatement following such action under this section, as well as resignations for reasons stated in this section shall be processed under Article XI in the same manner as proceedings involving acts of misconduct.”

The requested amendment of Rule 11.-02(6) was that the following be added to the present rule:

“A member of The Florida Bar disbarred or suspended from the practice of law by a court or other authorized disciplinary agency of another state or by a federal court shall within 30 days after the effective date of the disbarment or suspension file with this Court a copy of the order or judgment effecting such disbarment or suspension. At the same time he may file with this Court and serve on the Executive Director of The Florida Bar a petition to withhold suspension from practice, and such petition, together with a copy of the response of The Florida Bar shall be referred by The Florida Bar to a referee for proceedings as though a complaint had been filed initially by The Florida Bar. In the event such petition to withhold suspension from practice is not filed within such time, or in the event such copy of the order or judgment is not filed within such time, then 31 days after the entry of such order or judgment, the member of The Florida Bar shall stand suspended from the practice of law in this state without further order of this Court. Such suspension in this state shall not preclude the member of The Florida Bar thereafter filing a petition with The Florida Bar for appointment of a referee to recommend a suitable disciplinary measure or The Florida Bar thereafter filing a complaint hereunder based upon the fact of discipline in such foreign jurisdiction.”

We have changed this rule so that only the following will be added to Rule 11.-02(6):

“A member of The Florida Bar disbarred or suspended from the practice of law by a court or other authorized disciplinary agency of another state or by a [858]*858federal court shall within 30 days after the effective date of the disbarment or suspension file with this Court a copy of the order or judgment effecting such disbarment or suspension.”

In all other respects the petition of The Florida Bar is granted.

Appended to this order is the revision of Articles II and XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar which shall govern all proceedings within the scope of these rules after 12:01 a.m., December 1, 1972. This revision shall supersede all conflicting rules.

Adopted and approved by the Court, en banc, May 31, 1972.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE INTEGRATION RULE OF THE FLORIDA BAR

A lawyer who has been adjudged insane or mentally incompetent shall be suspended from the practice of law. If an order of restoration is entered by a court having jurisdiction, he may apply to the Board of Governors for reinstatement on the roll of attorneys.

(a) Whenever an attorney is suspended for incapacity or disability, or disappears or dies, and no partner, executor or other responsible party capable of conducting the attorney’s affairs is known to exist, the appropriate circuit court, upon proper proof of the fact, may appoint an attorney or attorneys to inventory the files of the suspended, disappearing or deceased attorney and to take such action as seems indicated to protect the interests of clients of the suspended, disappearing or deceased attorney as well as the interest of that attorney.

(b) Any attorney so appointed shall not be permitted to disclose any information contained in files so inventoried without the consent of the client to whom such file relates except as necessary to carry out the order of the court which appointed the attorney to make such inventory.

AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XI OF THE INTEGRATION RULE OF THE FLORIDA BAR

Article XI

RULES OF DISCIPLINE

The exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law shall be administered in the following manner subject to the supervision and review of the Court.

RULE 11.01: PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITIONS

(1) Notice and knowledge of rules. Every member of The Florida Bar and every attorney of another state who is admitted to practice for the purpose of a specific case before a court of record of this state under Section 2 of Article II of the Integration Rule is within the jurisdiction of this Court and its agencies under this Rule and is charged with notice and held to know the provisions of this Rule and the standards of ethical and professional conduct prescribed by this Court. Jurisdiction over an attorney of another state who is not a member of The Florida Bar shall be limited to his conduct as an attorney in relation to the business for which he was permitted to practice in this state, and his privilege in the future to practice law in the State of Florida.

(2) Process. Every member of The Florida Bar is charged with notice of the provisions of Section 6 of Article II relating to change -of mailing address or military status and that mailing by registered or certified mail of papers or notices prescribed in these rules to the last mailing address of an attorney as shown by the of[859]*859ficial records in the office of the Executive Director of The Florida Bar shall be sufficient notice and service unless this Court shall direct otherwise. Every attorney of another state who is permitted to practice for the purpose of a specific case before a court of record of this state may be served by registered or certified mail addressed to said attorney in care of the Florida attorney who was associated or appeared with him in the specific case for which the out of state attorney was permitted to practice, or addressed to said attorney at any address listed by him in the pleadings in such case.

(3) Definitions.

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

Related

Badon v. R J R Nabisco Inc.
224 F.3d 382 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
The Florida Bar
425 So. 2d 531 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
The Florida Bar v. Mattingly
342 So. 2d 508 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1977)
In re Florida Bar
301 So. 2d 446 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)
Florida Bar v. Miller
269 So. 2d 364 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)
In re Rassner
265 So. 2d 363 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)
In re Florida Board of Bar Examiners
265 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 So. 2d 857, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-florida-bar-fla-1972.