Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

465 So. 2d 527

465 So.2d 527

10 Fla.L.Weekly 167

Florida Bar v. Grant

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided March 7, 1985

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1985-03-07

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1987

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The referee found the following facts: 1. On December 30, 1981, Mr. Hugh W. Wheelless retained Respondent, Richard W. Grant, to assist him in collecting monies owed to him by Altha Flying Service. Mr. Grant agreed to represent Mr. Wheelless on a contingency fee basis (no monies were ever paid to Mr. Grant by Mr. Wheelless). Over the next 2 years, Mr. Wheelless attempted to establish contact with Mr. Grant on approximately 25 separate occasions either by telephone or by letter. Mr. Wheelless was concerned about the status of his case and was desirous of getting the matter resolved. Many of the attempts to contact Mr. Grant resulted in unretumed phone calls. The Respondent made some statements to Mr. Wheelless that were misleading and inaccurate such as his letter of March, 1983, which indicated that a trial would be scheduled within the next two weeks. At the time of the letter no law suit had yet been filed. On February 21, 1984, after a lack of cooperation from Respondent, Mr. Wheelless contacted the Florida Bar to file a complaint. 2. Mr. Wheelless retained other counsel and received a final judgment against Altha Flying Service. As of December, 1986 the judgment remained uncollected. 3. Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the Florida Bar by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. Respondent failed to carry out his duty owed to his client, and his inaction demonstrates a clear absence of care or attention to the o”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 514 So. 2d 1075 - The Florida Bar v. Grant

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-03-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This attorney discipline proceeding is before us on a complaint of The Florida Bar against Richard W. Grant, Grant’s conditional guilty plea for consent judgment, and the report of a referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We accept Grant’s guilty plea and approve the referee's report.

¶2The conditional guilty plea stated that Grant, as city attorney for Marianna, Florida, undertook the representation and defense of Marianna in a federal civil rights action. Grant failed to answer several discovery requests made by the plaintiffs and did not respond to court orders or attend court hearings on discovery. His neglect caused the federal trial court to impose sanctions against the city, including a finding of full liability on all pending claims and payment of $2,675.50 for the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. Grant admitted that he violated disciplinary rule 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. He agreed to a public reprimand by this Court, restitution in the amount of $2,675.50 to the City of Marianna, and the costs of these proceedings. The referee recommended that we accept the conditional plea of guilty, including the suggested discipline. We have reviewed the facts of the case and approve the referee’s report.

¶3Accordingly, we hereby reprimand Richard W. Grant for violation of disciplinary rule 6-101(A)(3). The publication of this order in Southern Reporter shall constitute his public reprimand. Grant shall also make restitution in the amount of $2,675.50 to Marianna, Florida. Costs in the amount of $508.05 are hereby entered against Grant, for which let execution issue.

¶4It is so ordered.

ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
/465/so2d/527 · .json · Public domain