THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
A. KARL STEVENS, 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 disciplined attorney A. Karl Stevens for violations of professional responsibility rules related to conduct prejudicial to fitness to practice and courtroom decorum. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's recommended discipline including a public reprimand, one-year probation with specific conditions, psychological evaluation, mandatory staff education, and prohibition on broadcast media appearances.
The Court approved the referee's findings of guilt and imposed a comprehensive disciplinary regime including public reprimand, one-year probation, mandatory psychological/psychiatric evaluation and possible counseling, mandatory continuing legal education for staff, office evaluation by The Florida Bar, payment of costs, and prohibition on radio or television appearances.
[1] A conditional guilty plea for consent judgment in a disciplinary proceeding is subject to review and approval by the court.
[2] Disciplinary rules may govern attorney conduct, including prohibitions against engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, engaging in condu…
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“This consolidated disciplinary proceeding is before us on the complaint of The Florida Bar, report of the referee, and respondent's conditional guilty plea for consent judgment.”
Establishes the procedural posture and that Stevens submitted a conditional guilty plea for consent judgment rather than contesting the charges
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAttorney Stevens engaged in conduct violating multiple Disciplinary Rules under The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. The specific fact…
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 Continuing Legal Education cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This consolidated disciplinary proceeding is before us on the complaint of The Florida Bar, report of the referee, and respondent’s conditional guilty plea for consent judgment. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-106(C)(5) of The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, and that respondent be disciplined by the following: (1) a public reprimand; (2) a one-year probation commencing on March 21, 1986, the date his plea was accepted; (3) payment of costs to be made by termination date of probation; (4) a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and, if recommended by the evaluating party, continued counseling or therapy, provided that the counseling or therapy shall not be required after termination of probation; (5) requiring, prior to termination of probation, respondent’s secretarial staff to complete a continuing legal education or other comparable educational course generally relating to office procedure and ethical issues and respondent’s office to be evaluated by J.R. Phelps of The Florida Bar; and (6) refraining from future radio or television appearances. We approve the referee’s recommended findings and discipline. Accordingly, we publicly reprimand respondent, place him on probation for one year under all the conditions established by the referee, and direct that he undergo the psychological or psychiatric examination and cease radio or television appearances.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,293.90 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, Acting Chief Justice, and McDonald, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.