STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ARTHUR A. CARLSON, 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 Arthur A. Carlson for commingling client trust funds with his personal funds and subsequently using them for his own purposes, in violation of Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the Board of Governors' recommendation to suspend Carlson from practice for three months and assessed costs against him.
The respondent violated Canon 11 by commingling trust funds with personal funds and using them for his own purposes. The court affirmed the Board of Governors' recommendation for a three-month suspension from practice and assessed costs of $85.23 against the respondent.
“the respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct in commingling trust funds obtained from a client with his personal funds and with subsequently using the funds for his own purposes”
Establishes the core disciplinary violation charged against the attorney
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur A. Carlson, an admitted Florida attorney, obtained trust funds from a client and commingled those funds with his personal funds. He subsequentl…
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 Canons Of Professional Ethics cases and more on FLexlaw
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against the respondent, Arthur A. Carlson, an attorney at law admitted to practice in the State of Florida, charging that the respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct in commingling trust funds obtained from a client with his personal funds and with subsequently using the funds for his own purposes. By reason of these alleged acts, the respondent was charged with violation of Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida, 31 F.S.A. Code of Ethics, Rule A, canon 11. A hearing on the complaint was duly held before a referee who, after taking evidence, found that the matters alleged in the complaint were true and that the respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct. It was further found that the respondent had made restitution.
Thereafter, on February 13, 1961, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar filed with the Clerk of this court its judgment in which the findings of fact made by the referee were approved and adopted. It was ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of three months commencing on the date when this matter becomes final by order of this court. The judgment also assessed actual costs of the proceedings against the respondent in the sum of $85.23.
More than thirty days having now elapsed since the filing with the Clerk of this court of the judgment of the Board of Governors together with the transcript of the evidence and the other proceedings in the cause, and no petition for review of said judgment having been filed, and this court having duly considered the record and recommendations in said cause, it is ordered that the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar that the respondent Arthur A. Carlson be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of three months commencing with the date of this order and that he pay costs of this proceeding in the sum of $85.23, be and the same is hereby approved and adopted as the judgment of this court as provided by Article XI, Section 5(e) Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 31 F.S.A.
Execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs assessed against the respondent.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Carlson, 183 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1966)…m the practice for five years. This cause is also unusual in that this is the fifth instance in which this respondent has been before this court for his professional misconduct. He has twice been suspended. State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Carlson, 128 So. 2d 385 and 154 So. 2d 689. On two occasions he has been convicted of contempt of this court for practicing law during periods of suspension. The Florida [*542] Bar v. Carlson, 164 So. 2d 813 and 172 So. 2d 578. The record in this cause amply ■supports the…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Carlson, 172 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1965)…164 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1963). By order of this Court dated April 20, 1964 (Fla., 164 So. 2d 813), respondent has previously been found in contempt of court for practicing law in violation of this Court’s order of suspension dated March 29, 1961 (Fla., 128 So. 2d 385).…