The Florida Bar v. Moran

273 So. 2d 390, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4834
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 21, 1973
Docket43223
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 273 So. 2d 390 (The Florida Bar v. Moran) 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
The Florida Bar v. Moran, 273 So. 2d 390, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4834 (Fla. 1973).

Opinion

273 So.2d 390 (1973)

THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner,
v.
Lucille E. MORAN, Respondent.

No. 43223.

Supreme Court of Florida.

February 21, 1973.

Leonard Rivkind, Miami Beach, and Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

John J. Quinn, Key West, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We issued a Rule to Show Cause, in consequence of a petition by The Florida Bar, directing Lucille E. Moran to explain why she should not be held in contempt of this Court for the unauthorized practice of law in this State. Article V, § 15, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. (formerly, Article V, § 23, Florida Constitution, 1968); Article II, § 2, Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A.

The unauthorized practice consisted of her distribution and use of business cards bearing these words: "Independent Bar Association of Massachusetts, Lucille E. Moran, Attorney at Law, Specializing in Tax Defenses, P.O. Box 641, Tavernier, Florida 33070." The Bar's position is that the card falsely represents and suggests that she is an attorney licensed to practice in this State. We agree. Respondent is resident in Florida; she appears to hold herself out for business here; she advertises that her specialty is tax defense work and that she is an attorney at law. The logical inference is that Florida permits her to practice. See The Florida Bar v. Fuentes, 190 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1966).

Although acknowledging in her response to the Rule that she had distributed the cards, respondent now states through her counsel that she does not intend to distribute the card in the future. Accepting this *391 statement of cooperation as true, we are satisfied that the Rule heretofore issued should be discharged.

It is so ordered.

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

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

Related

In re Anonymous
22 Pa. D. & C.4th 64 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
The Florida Bar v. Tate
552 So. 2d 1106 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1989)
The Florida Bar v. Matus
528 So. 2d 895 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
Simons v. Bellinger
643 F.2d 774 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)
In re Florida Bar
317 So. 2d 754 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)
State v. Schumacher
519 P.2d 1116 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 So. 2d 390, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-florida-bar-v-moran-fla-1973.