IN RE JOHN H. LIPINSKI. DAVID LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Attorney Lipinski was publicly reprimanded for failing to exercise reasonable precautions and due diligence in protecting his client's appeal, demonstrating lack of professionalism.
An attorney's failure to take reasonable precautions to protect a client's appeal, while not willful, constitutes conduct warranting public reprimand and placement on a culpa list.
[1] An attorney's failure to exercise reasonable precautions to protect a client's appeal, though not willful, may constitute grounds for public reprimand and disciplinary sa…
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 intelligenceAttorney John H. Lipinski represented appellant David Lee in an appeal to the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District. Lipinski made certain …
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 Appellate Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On February 19, 1991, the Honorable Jack M. Coe, Dade County Court Judge, was appointed by this court as a Commissioner to take testimony and make recommendations as to whether John H. Lipinski, Esq. should be disciplined for certain conduct and representations made to the court as the attorney for the appellant in David Lee v. State of Florida, Case no. 90-2513. In an excellent and comprehensive report rendered pursuant to that assignment, Judge Coe reached the following conclusions:
Lipinski’s failure to take reasonable precautions to protect his client’s appeal, while not willful, demonstrates a lack of due diligence and professionalism which can only harm his client, lessen the authority and dignity of this Court, and impede the judiciary process. Accordingly, this Commissioner finds that Lipin-ski’s conduct cannot be ignored, and justifies discipline by this Court.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the recommendation of this Commissioner that a public reprimand be issued against Lipinski, to be published in the Southern Reporter. Further, it is recommended that the Court place Lipinski on a “Culpa List,” and that he be warned that future misconduct in the handling of an appeal may result in more severe sanctions.
The court has carefully reviewed the report and concludes that its findings and recommendations are fully justified by the evidence and the reasoning employed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, they are hereby accepted and approved without qualification. It is further ordered that the respondent Lipinski pay the costs of this proceeding: the court reporter’s statement of $719.80.