THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
MAYER GATTEGNO, 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 Mayer Gattegno for improperly engaging in multiple representation of clients with conflicting interests and for failing to competently advise a client regarding a confession of judgment. The court approved a consent judgment imposing a public reprimand and one-year probation with conditions including monthly supervision and ethics training.
Respondent violated Disciplinary Rules 5-105(A) and 5-105(C) regarding multiple representation without proper disclosure and consent, and violated Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(2) and 6-101(A)(3) by failing to adequately research the law and competently advise his client.
[1] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by engaging in multiple representation without documenting disclosure and consent when a conflict of interest is not clearly avoid…
[2] An attorney violates disciplinary rules by failing to adequately research the law and competently advise a client when preparing legally ineffectual documents.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Respondent admits that he improperly engaged in multiple representation when it was not clear that he could do so without becoming involved in a conflict of interest and without documenting any disclosure to and consent of the parties.”
Establishes the core violation of failing to properly handle multiple representation with conflicting interests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Gattegno prepared legal documents (a promissory note and confession of judgment) for two clients who entered into a loan agreement with one…
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 Multiple Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court for consideration of a consent judgment submitted by attorney Mayer Gattegno, the respondent in a client-grievance matter being investigated by The Florida Bar. The consent judgment is filed pursuant to Rule 3-7.8(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The consent judgment submitted by respondent states that he performed legal work for two clients who entered into a loan agreement with one another. Respondent prepared and the borrowers executed a promissory note and a confession of judgment. The borrowers and the lender ultimately became involved in litigation as adverse parties.
Respondent admits that he improperly engaged in multiple representation when it was not clear that he could do so without becoming involved in a conflict of interest and without documenting any disclosure to and consent of the parties. Respondent admits that he thereby violated Disciplinary Rules 5-105(A) and 5-105(C) as set forth in the former Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar. Respondent also admits that his preparation of the legally ineffectual confession of judgment showed a failure to adequately research the law and competently advise his client in violation of Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(2) and 6-101(A)(3) of the Code.
Respondent states that he had previously represented both clients in unrelated matters and received no compensation for his services in connection with the loan agreement.
In the consent judgment, respondent agrees to the imposition of a public reprimand and probation for one year. As conditions of probation respondent agrees to submit monthly reports to and attend monthly meetings with a supervisory attorney appointed by The Florida Bar. The reports will set forth the status of and future action to be taken on all open files in respondent’s law practice. Respondent also agrees to attend and successfully complete a law school course in professional ethics.
The Florida Bar recommends that respondent’s consent judgment be approved and the disciplinary measures set forth therein be adopted. Accordingly, we hereby reprimand attorney Mayer Gattegno and place him on probation for a period of one year from the date of this judgment, subject to the conditions set forth in the consent judgment.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKEE v. State, 528 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ry limit for a third-degree felony, five years. See McKinley v. State, 519 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Posey v. State, 501 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); McDowell v. State, 491 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), approved in part, quashed in part, 509 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1987); see also Committee Note, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12).1 In the instant case, the incarcerative period is two years, which falls within the guideline range. From the colloquy shown by the trial transcript, it is apparent that the trial co…
-
McKINLEY v. State, 519 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…nd the total sentence does not exceed the legal maximum sentence, the sentence is not a departure sentence. Cain v. State, 506 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); McDowell v. State, 491 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), approved in part, quashed in part, 509 So. 2d 927 (Fla.1987). We therefore affirm the sentence for attempted second degree murder. [*1155] Finally, costs were erroneously imposed under section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1985) as the offenses were committed prior to the effective date of that sta…
-
Detroy Littles v. State, 515 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…d and fall within the statutory maximum if it is to be upheld. We decline the state’s invitation to treat this sentencing error as harmless on the authority of McDowell v. State, 491 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), approved in part, quashed in part, 509 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1987). Appellant’s sentences for these four counts are VACATED and this cause is REMANDED for resentencing. SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The Committee Note to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12) states in part: If a split sentence is i…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence