THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
STEVEN M. GREENBERG, 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 Supreme Court suspended attorney Steven M. Greenberg from practice for a minimum of three years following his federal felony convictions for conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana.
An attorney convicted of federal felonies involving conspiracy to import and distribute controlled substances must be suspended from practice for not less than three years until civil rights are restored and reinstatement is granted.
[1] An attorney convicted of a felony involving conspiracy to import and distribute controlled substances is subject to mandatory suspension from practice for a minimum of th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteven M. Greenberg, a Florida Bar member, was convicted in the United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, of conspiracy to import ma…
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 Integration Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Bar, pursuant to article XI, rule 11.07, Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, has notified this Court that Steven M. Greenberg, a member of The Florida Bar, has been convicted of a felony. The supporting documents disclose an adjudication of guilty to one count of conspiracy to import a controlled substance (marijuana) in violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 952(a) and 963 and a conviction of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (marijuana) in violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 841(a)(1) and 846. These convictions occurred in the United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana.
Pursuant to article XI, rule 11.07(3) and (4) of the Integration Rule of the Florida Bar, this Court hereby suspends Steven M. Greenberg from The Florida Bar, and he is barred from practicing law in Florida for a period of not less than three years, effective July 23, 1985, and thereafter until his civil rights have been restored and until reinstated by order of this Court. Should his conviction be overturned on appeal, this Court will review this order of suspension upon Greenberg’s petition.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Turner v. State, 530 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1987)…hat the tape was relevant to premeditation.2 The trial court has wide discretion concerning the admission of evidence, and we will not disturb the court’s ruling unless an abuse is shown. King v. State, 514 So. 2d 354 (Fla.1987); O’Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.1985); Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.1981), cert, denied, 457 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 2916, 73 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1982). Welty v. State, 402 So. 2d 1159 (Fla.1981). Turner has shown no abuse. In imposing the death penalty for the murder of Joyce…
-
Kristopher Sanders v. State, 707 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1998)…w defense counsel to attempt to rehabilitate death scrupled jurors on voir dire violates both due process and rule 3.300(b). See, e.g., Willacy v. State, 640 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1994); Hernandez v. State, 621 So. 2d 1353 (Fla.1993); O’Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.1985). The State, however, argues that those cases are distinguishable because, in those cases, it was the State rather than the trial judge who questioned the jurors before they were excused for cause, or the jurors’ responses were equivocal.…
-
van Poyck v. Singletary, 715 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1998)…challenge. We do not condone the trial judge’s proposed "bargain.” Counsel for both the prosecution and the defense have a due process right and a right under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.300(b) to examine venirepersons. O'Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.1985). .The issue was not preserved for direct appeal as to one of these jurors because Van Poyck’s trial counsel did not identify her as a venireper-son whom he wanted to excuse through an additional peremptory challenge. Kearse v. State, 662…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence