THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
HAROLD LONG, 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 accepted Harold Long's conditional guilty plea and imposed discipline including a three-year probation, public reprimand, and reimbursement to the Clients Security Fund for violations of professional conduct rules involving excessive fees, neglect, failure to maintain client trust accounts, and conduct reflecting unfitness to practice.
An attorney who violates multiple disciplinary rules including excessive fees, neglect of legal matters, and failure to maintain client trust accounts may be disciplined by public reprimand, probation, and restitution.
[1] An attorney's conditional guilty plea to disciplinary violations may be accepted by consent when neither party contests the referee's recommended discipline.
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 intelligenceHarold Long was charged with nine counts of professional misconduct, including excessive fees, neglect of a legal matter, failure to carry out employm…
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 Trust Account Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After the Florida Bar filed a nine-count complaint against him, Long filed a conditional guilty plea for consent judgment. The referee recommends both that the plea be accepted and that Long be found guilty of violating article XI, rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule as well as the following disciplinary rules: 1-102(A)(1) (violation of a disciplinary rule), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (excessive fee), 6-103(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out contract of employment), 9-102(A) (failure to deposit client’s funds in trust account), and 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly deliver client’s funds). The referee recommends the following discipline: public reprimand by publication in Southern Reporter; three-year probation, during which Long will file monthly reports with the bar to verify his continued voluntary rehabilitation from alcohol abuse; termination of probation if a finding of probable cause is made concerning alcohol abuse; reimbursement to the Clients Security Fund; and payment of costs.
Neither side contests the referee’s report, and we adopt his recommendations. Publication of this opinion in the Southern Reporter will serve as Long’s public reprimand, and he is hereby put on probation for three years, subject to the above-stated conditions. Judgment for costs in the amount of $572.87 is hereby entered against Long, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and McDONALD, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Long, 514 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1987)…spondent’s default in failing to respond to the Bar’s complaints and failure to appear at the hearing despite proper and adequate notice. Respondent was previously reprimanded and placed on probation for similar violations. The Florida Bar v. Long, 486 So. 2d 591 (Fla.1986). The referee found that respondent has failed to comply with the conditions of probation imposed upon him in that proceeding; i.e., monthly reports on progress against alcohol abuse, reimbursement to the Clients’ Security Fund, and paymen…