THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ARTHUR J. WOLFSON, 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 sought disciplinary sanctions against attorney Arthur J. Wolfson after two separate referee proceedings found him guilty of multiple violations of professional conduct rules, including dishonesty, fund misappropriation, check fraud, and neglect of legal matters. The Florida Supreme Court upheld both referees' findings and imposed disbarment, the ultimate sanction.
Wolfson shall be disbarred from the practice of law. The court approved both referees' findings of fact, affirmed the second referee's recommendation of disbarment as fully warranted, and rejected the first referee's recommendation of suspension in favor of the ultimate sanction of disbarment based on respondent's cumulative and persistent misfeasance.
[1] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct that adversely refl…
[2] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by neglecting legal matters entrusted to him.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The record in both proceedings amply supports the findings of the referees with respect to the charges made in both complaints; accordingly, these findings of fact are approved.”
Establishes the court's affirmation of the referees' factual findings regarding Wolfson's misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWolfson was found to have engaged in dishonest conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, neglected legal matters entrusted to him by clien…
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 Insufficient Funds Checks cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated petitions for review bring to us the reports of two referees who have found Arthur J. Wolfson guilty of misconduct warranting discipline. The first referee found Wolfson guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty), 1 — 102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on one’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting legal matters entrusted to him), 9-102(A) (prohibiting commingling of clients’ funds with those of the attorney) and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring the prompt payment to the client of all funds the client is entitled to receive). For these multiple infractions, the referee recommended that Wolfson be suspended for six months and thereafter until he can prove his rehabilitation.
The second referee found Wolfson guilty of two additional acts of misconduct, one of which involved issuing a check with knowledge that insufficient funds were available to cover it, a violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6). The other violation, neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him by his client (DR 6-101(A)(3)), warranted, according to the referee, disbarment. Wolfson has not sought our review of either referee’s report, and The Florida Bar urges the ultimate sanction of disbarment based on respondent’s cumulative and persistent misfeasance.
The record in both proceedings amply supports the findings of the referees with respect to the charges made in both complaints; accordingly, these findings of fact are approved. The second referee’s recommendation for punishment, namely that Arthur Wolfson be disbarred from the practice of law, is fully warranted on these records and is also approved.
The disbarment shall be effective on August 31, 1981, thereby giving respondent time to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients, and it is ordered that respondent shall not accept any new business. Execution is directed to issue for the costs of these proceedings against the respondent in the amount of $1,137.25.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.