THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ALBERT G. SIEGEL, 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 court adopted the referee's recommendations, suspending the respondent attorney for three years and requiring proof of rehabilitation including client reimbursement.
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against the respondent attorney alleging violations of Disciplinary Rules. The referee found the respondent guilty o…
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 Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This attorney discipline proceeding is before us on the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The Bar filed a complaint against the respondent alleging three violations of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), one violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4), and one violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) of The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. The referee recommended that the respondent be found guilty of all violations alleged in the complaint and suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years.
We adopt the uncontested recommendations of the referee. We hereby suspend the respondent from the practice of law for three years and, in accordance with the referee’s recommendation, condition the respondent’s readmission upon proof of rehabilitation which must include reimbursement of the respondent’s former clients for losses incurred due to the respondent’s negligence or dishonesty. The suspension shall be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $563.09 is hereby entered against respondent, for which let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, Acting C.J., and ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. John M. and Patricia A. Haire, 836 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ifically noted the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of particularity. See id. at 539, 87 S.Ct. 1727. While Camara does not require a finding that a particular property poses a specific threat of violating the administrative scheme, see Roche v. State, 462 So. 2d 1096, 1100 (Fla.1985), it still requires that the property to be searched be described with particularity. A search warrant merely describing the property to be searched as the entire county, or even a section of that county, is patently unconstitutional…
-
Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 724 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…o be tested by the reasonableness of the conduct. That test, the Court continued, is “balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails.” Camara, 387 U.S. at 537, 87 S.Ct. at 1735, 18 L.Ed.2d at 940. See also Roche v. State, 462 So. 2d 1096, 1099-1100 (Fla.1985). The Court has recognized exceptions to the general rule that warrantless inspections are unconstitutional as violative of the Fourth Amendment in cases such as Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct.…