THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
LEON A. BLAKER, 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 approved the Florida Bar's disciplinary decision to suspend attorney Leon A. Blaker from the practice of law for one year based on findings of negligence and misrepresentation in violation of professional conduct canons.
The Court approved the Board of Governors' judgment finding the respondent guilty of negligence and misrepresentation constituting unprofessional conduct and upheld the suspension of his law license for one year plus costs of $75.30.
“the respondent was guilty of negligence and misrepresentation and that such acts constituted unprofessional conduct under the provisions of Article XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar and under the provisions of Canons 27 and 30 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida”
The Board of Governors' findings of the specific unprofessional conduct violations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA complaint was filed on December 31, 1957, against respondent attorney Leon A. Blaker for unprofessional conduct. A Referee appointed by the Bar's Bo…
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 Unprofessional Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
On December 31, 1957, a complaint was filed against Leon A. Blaker, respondent, an attorney at law, charging him with unprofessional conduct in violation of Canons 27 and 30 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court on January 27, 1941, 31 F.S.A.
■ Pursuant to Article XI, Paragraph 5 of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 31 F.S.A., the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar appointed a Referee to conduct a hearing on the complaint. Upon conducting the hearing the Referee found that the respondent was guilty of the charges as alleged. His recommendation was that the respondent be disciplined for his misconduct by having his license to practice law suspended for a period of one year. Respondent filed a statement in opposition to the report of the Referee asserting that his recommendation was harsh and oppressive. Upon review of the report of the Referee the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar approved and adopted his findings and recommendation. It ruled that the respondent was guilty of negligence and misrepresentation and that such acts constituted unprofessional conduct under the provisions of Article XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar and under the provisions of Canons 27 and 30 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida. The Board, on July 8, 1958, ordered and adjudged that respondent be thereby suspended from the practice of law for one year. It petitioned this Court to assess actual costs in the amount of $75.30 against the respondent.
The judgment and record of the Board of Governors was then filed with the Clerk of this Court and on July 14, 1958, the Clerk by registered mail forwarded to the respondent a certified copy of the judgment of the Board.
More than thirty days now having elapsed since the filing of the judgment of the Board with the Clerk of this Court together with the transcript of the evidence and the other proceedings in the cause, and no petition for review having been filed, and this Court having duly considered the record and recommendation, it is thereupon ordered that the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar be approved, and respondent, Leon A. Blaker, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of one year and costs of $75.30 are hereby assessed against him.
TERRELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ.,'concur.