THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOHN ERROL LEE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Bar disciplinary proceeding against attorney John Errol Lee resulted in his disbarment for multiple violations of professional conduct rules, including incompetent representation, mishandling of client funds, failure to deliver documents, gross neglect, and misappropriation of employee funds.
The court found Lee guilty of misconduct across all five counts and approved the referee's recommendation for disbarment. Lee was disbarred from the practice of law in Florida effective immediately, with costs of $569.90 taxed against him.
[1] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by incompetently representing a client, acquiring an adverse proprietary interest in client property, and failing to maintain clie…
[2] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by failing to deliver a client's will after fees have been paid and the will executed.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Respondent has violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) and 5-103(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, in, respectively, incompetently representing his client, the Admin-istratrix, acquiring a propietary [sic] interest adverse to his client, the Admin-istratrix, in property intrusted to him and failing to keep and maintain funds belonging to his client, the Administratrix, in an identifiable trust account”
Establishes the core violations related to mishandling client funds and conflicts of interest
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee violated professional responsibility rules across five counts: (1) incompetently representing an Administratrix while acquiring an adverse proprie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Communicate With Client cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against John Errol Lee, a member of The Florida Bar, is presently before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and report of referee. Pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.06(9)(b) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the referee’s report and record were duly filed with this Court. No petition for review pursuant to Integration Rule of The Florida Bar 11.09(1) has been filed.
Having considered the pleadings and evidence, the referee found as follows:
1. As to Count I:
Respondent has violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) and 5-103(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, in, respectively, incompetently representing his client, the Ad-ministratrix, acquiring a propietary [sic] interest adverse to his client, the Admin-istratrix, in property intrusted to him and failing to keep and maintain funds belonging to his client, the Administratrix, in an identifiable trust account and applying the same for the purpose for which they were intended.
2. As to Count II:
Respondent has violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11.02(3) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, in that he failed to deliver her Will to his client after she had paid Respondent’s fees and had executed said Will.
3. As to Count III:
Respondent has violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11.02(3) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar by gross neglect as a result of which his client was jailed; Respondent failed to communicate critical information to his client(s) and made it impossible for them to communicate with him.
4. As to Count IV:
Respondent has violated Disciplinary Rule 9-102(A), (B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, in that he failed to keep, maintain and return upon demand, his client’s funds, given him to be deposited into his trust account with reference to a real estate purchase.
5. As to Count V:
Respondent has violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar by obtaining thousands of dollars of his employee’s monies upon agreement to return same in one (1) week, but he failed so to do.
The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of misconduct justifying disciplinary measures and recommends that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Accordingly, respondent, John Errol Lee, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida effective immediately-
Costs in the amount of $569.90 are hereby taxed against respondent.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. LEE, 409 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1982)…and until he proves rehabilitation and pays res [*1029] titution and costs. The Bar’s petition for review points out that after the referee’s report was filed, respondent was disbarred in an unrelated disciplinary proceeding. The Florida Bar v. Lee, 396 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1981). We therefore extend from three to four years the period respondent must wait from the date of disbarment before seeking reinstatement. Fla.Bar Integr. R., art. XI, Rule 11.10(5). The recommended condition of restitution of amounts found…