THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ROYCE DARRELL PIPKINS, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1995-01-12
No. 82144
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
647 So. 2d 846 Florida Supreme Court (1995)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's disciplinary report against attorney Royce Darrell Pipkins, suspending him from practice for 60 days and placing him on 18-month probation with requirements for trust account monitoring, client communication logging, and restitution to clients for improper fund retention.


Holding

The Court suspended Pipkins from the practice of law for 60 days with automatic reinstatement, placed him on 18-month probation with strict conditions regarding trust account compliance and client communications, required restitution to affected clients, and imposed costs of $1,919.30 against him.


Headnotes

[1] A petition to review a referee's report in disciplinary proceedings may be dismissed for failure to file a brief and otherwise prosecute the petition.

[2] A respondent in disciplinary proceedings may be suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty days with automatic reinstatement.

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

Key Quotes

“Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty (60) days with automatic reinstatement as provided in Rule of Discipline 3-5.1(e), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.”

States the primary disciplinary sanction imposed on the respondent.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Respondent Pipkins engaged in disciplinary violations involving improper handling of client trust accounts and client funds. He retained excess funds …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*847] PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court upon the respondent’s petition to review the report and recommendation of the referee in these disciplinary proceedings. The Bar has moved to dismiss the petition and for summary approval of the referee’s report based upon petitioner’s failure to file a brief and otherwise prosecute his petition. We grant the motion and, having reviewed the report and recommendation of the referee, approve such report in its entirety.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty (60) days with automatic reinstatement as provided in Rule of Discipline 3-5.1(e), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Respondent is hereby placed on probation for a period of eighteen (18) months as provided in Rule 3-5.1, Rules of Discipline. The terms of this probation are as follows: Respondent is to follow all rules relating to trust accounts; he is to provide The Florida Bar and an attorney appointed by The Florida Bar with (1) quarterly reports concerning his trust account and (2) quarterly reports logging all telephone calls and letters received from clients and his prompt reply thereto. Respondent shall make restitution to Mr. Ray Latham for any funds retained in excess of the $3,500 charge for the appeal and he is directed to return Mr. Matthew Gillio’s house plans and other documents, all to be done within thirty (30) days and certified to The Florida Bar as completed.

In addition, costs are taxed against respondent and in favor of The Florida Bar in the amount of $1,919.30 for which let execution issue.

The suspension will be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Pipkins can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If respondent notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately. Respondent shall accept no new business from the date this opinion is filed.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw