Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

201 So. 2d 449

Florida Bar v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 26, 1967

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1967-07-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““This cause came on for review and consideration by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar upon the report of its referee and the record of proceedings before him. This respondent has been before this Board in another unrelated disciplinary case. Final judgment of this Board has previously been entered and filed in this Court on June 8, 1967. The recommendation of discipline in that case was disbarment. “The present charges are not unlike those of the former case. After trial the referee has found the respondent guilty of eight separate charges whichi generally involve failure to diligently represent his clients. In several of these cases, respondent was found to have deceived his clients in matters of importance to them. Several of the clients were substantially damaged by the respondent’s acceptance of substantial fees, failure to take action on the client’s behalf and misrepresentation concerning the progress of the legal matters in his hands. “After consideration, the Board concurs in the referee’s findings of guilt. In view of its recommendation in the former case it believes any recommendation less than disbarment would be inconsistent. Accordingly, it is the Board’s recommendation that the respondent be disbarred permanently from the practice of law and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $469.30. ‘ DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of June, 1967.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 202 So. 2d 562 - Florida Bar v. Taylor

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-07-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1993

6 state decisions

401967197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This case is before the Court for review of the judgment entered by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar on June 7, 1967. Said judgment reads in part:

“After hearing the evidence, the referee found the respondent guilty as charged upon all six counts. The referee recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years and that he pay the costs of these proceedings.
“Upon consideration of this record and the referee’s report, the Board of Governors concurs in the referee’s findings of guilt on all counts. However, it finds from this record, that respondent has demonstrated by his conduct that his relationships to his clients are entirely lacking in candor, trust and diligence. Under the circumstances, he should not be permitted to continue the practice of law to •the damage of his clients and to the embarrassment of the Bar and the administration of justice. It is accordingly
“ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $1482.80.”

¶2No request for hearing before us has been submitted by Respondent.

¶3The record and judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar have been examined by this Court. It is ordered that the judgment of said Board that Respondent William H. Taylor, Jr. is guilty as charged and that he be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida be, and the same is approved and adopted as the judgment of this Court. Execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against Respondent.

O’CONNELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
/201/so2d/449 · .json · Public domain