THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
MARIE SUSAN HOTALING, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1985-05-30
Nos. 63050, 65818
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
470 So. 2d 689 Florida Supreme Court (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The Court approves the referee's findings and recommendations, suspending the respondent attorney for eighteen months with conditions for reinstatement and probation.


Headnotes

[1] A lawyer violates professional responsibility rules by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to them and failing to carry out their contract of employment with a client.

[2] A lawyer engages in misconduct by failing to exercise a high standard of care to assure compliance by nonlawyer personnel and by failing to promptly deliver client proper…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Marie Susan Hotaling by The Florida Bar, with a referee recommending findings of guilt for multiple vi…

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.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary proceedings by The Florida Bar against Marie Susan Hotaling, a member of The Florida Bar, are presently before us on complaints 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 recommended as follows:

As to Case No. 63,050

I recommend Respondent be found guilty of the following violations, to wit: Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) in that she neglected a legal matter entrusted to her, and Rule 7-101(A)(2), in that she failed to carry out her contract of employment with Ms. Dodson.

As to Case No. 65,818 — Count I

I recommend Respondent be found guilty of the following violations, to wit:

Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in any conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law), Rule 3-104(C) (a lawyer shall exercise a high standard of care to assure compliance by nonlawyer personnel), and Rule 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client, upon request, property the client is entitled to receive).

As to Case No. 65,818 — Count II

I recommend Respondent be found guilty of the following violations, to wit:

Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not violate a disciplinary rule), Rule 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), Rule 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law), Rule 6-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter which he knows or should know he is not competent to handle), Rule 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances), Rule 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him), Rule 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client), Rule 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client) and Rule 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage his client). Recommendation as to Disciplinary Measures to be Applied

I recommend as follows:

(1) Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months with proof of rehabilitation required pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.-11 of the Integration Rule.

(2) Prior to reinstatement, Respondent should be required to take and successfully pass the entire Florida Bar examination, including the ethics portion of same.

(3) After Respondent has met the foregoing conditions and is reinstated to the practice of law, Respondent should be placed on probation for a period of eighteen (18) months, and should only be permitted to practice under the guidance of another member of The Florida Bar who is not currently under some type of disciplinary proceeding.

This Court ordered the parties to file simultaneous briefs pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.09(3)(f) directed to the suitability of the requirement recommended by the referee of taking and passing the Florida Bar Examination as a condition precedent to reinstatement. The Florida Bar filed its brief in support of the recommendation of the referee. The respondent did not file a brief.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.

Accordingly, respondent, Marie Susan Hotaling, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months with proof of rehabilitation required pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.11 of the Integration Rule. This suspension shall be effective July 1, 1985, thereby giving respondent thirty (30) days to close out her practice and take the necessary steps to protect her clients. Respondent shall not accept any new business.

Prior to reinstatement, respondent shall take and successfully pass the entire Florida Bar examination, including the ethics portion of same.

After respondent has met the foregoing conditions and is reinstated to the practice of law, she shall be placed on probation for a period of eighteen (18) months, and shall only practice under the guidance of another member of The Florida Bar who is not currently under some type of disciplinary proceeding.

Judgment for costs in the amount of $1,571.61 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Florida BAR v. Arango, 720 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1998)
    …ree’s recommendation that the experienced tax attorney be suspended for ninety days after the attorney pled guilty to a federal crime based on his willful backdating of joint venture documents to take advantage of tax laws); Florida Bar v. Hotaling, 470 So. 2d 689, 690-91 (Fla.1985) (approving uneontest-ed referee’s report recommending eighteen-month suspension where the referee found that the attorney had committed fourteen rule violations); Florida Bar v. Gunther, 390 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla.1980) (approving…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw