THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GORDON L. BELMONT, 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 disbarred attorney Gordon L. Belmont for serious financial misconduct involving forged checks, misappropriated trust funds, and multiple dishonored checks that violated Florida Bar rules. The disbarment was based on Belmont's prior disbarment in New Jersey and uncontested findings of professional misconduct.
Belmont is disbarred from the practice of law in Florida effective immediately. The Court approved the referee's findings that Belmont violated the former Integration Rule (article XI, rule 11.02(4)) and Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 9-102(B)(4) by misappropriating entrusted funds and failing to deliver client funds.
[1] An attorney's disbarment in another jurisdiction based on serious ethical violations, including forgery and trust account mismanagement, warrants disbarment in Florida.
[2] An attorney's failure to respond to The Florida Bar's complaint may result in the referee accepting the allegations as true.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 forged a check for $36,500 on his law partner's personal check book; (b) respondent gave a trust account check for $35,181 that was returned for insufficient funds; (c) respondent gave a second trust account check in the amount of $29,500 that was returned for insufficient funds”
Establishes the specific acts of financial misconduct underlying the disciplinary charges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBelmont was disbarred in New Jersey by consent on December 2, 1986, based on: forging a $36,500 check on his law partner's personal checkbook; issuing…
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 Florida Bar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of the uncontested report of the referee pursuant to rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Attorney Gordon L. Belmont did not respond to The Florida Bar’s complaint. The referee found that respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in New Jersey by the Supreme Court of New Jersey pursuant to a voluntary consent entered by respondent on December 2, 1986, and that respondent is now forever barred from seeking reinstatement to the Bar of New Jersey. This disbarment was based on circumstances reflecting that (a) respondent forged a check for $36,500 on his law partner’s personal check book; (b) respondent gave a trust account check for $35,181 that was returned for insufficient funds; (c) respondent gave a second trust account check in the amount of $29,500 that was returned for insufficient funds; (d) respondent’s bank dishonored another trust account check in the amount of $25,074.31; and (e) although respondent made a deposit into his trust account of $50,000 in order to cover outstanding client trust obligations, an audit of respondent’s trust account by the New Jersey State Bar authorities on August 19, 1980, revealed that from January, 1979, to July, 1980, at least thirty-five trust account checks were returned for insufficient funds with resulting negative balances as high as $55,719.69.
The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating the former Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, article XI, rule 11.02(4), in that he used entrusted funds for purposes not authorized, and the former Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), and 9-102(B)(4) (failure to deliver entrusted funds which client is entitled to receive).
The referee recommends that respondent be disbarred. Neither party seeks review of the referee’s report. We therefore ap prove the referee s findings and recommendations.
Gordon L. Belmont is hereby disbarred, effective immediately. The costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against Gordon L. Belmont in the amount of $300, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.