THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
WALTER J. MIGOSKI, 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.
Florida Bar disciplinary proceeding against attorney Walter Migoski for unprofessional conduct in violating multiple ethical rules and canons. The court suspended Migoski from practice for two years, rather than permanently disbarring him as recommended by the Bar's Board of Governors, conditioning reinstatement on payment of costs and proof of rehabilitation.
The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years and thereafter until he paid costs accrued and convinced the court and the Bar Board of Governors that he was fully rehabilitated and worthy of reinstatement.
“that he was not guilty of wilful wrongdoing" which placed him "in the posture of more a fool than a knave.”
The referee's finding that the respondent's misconduct was not intentional, which influenced the court's decision to impose suspension rather than disbarment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe respondent, an attorney, engaged in conduct that violated Rule 11.02(3)(a) and 11.02(4) of Article XI of the Integration Rule, as well as Canons o…
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 Legal Ethics cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is here for review of the record reflecting unprofessional conduct on the part of the respondent by violating Rule 11.02(3) (a) and 11.02(4) of Article XI of the Integration Rule, 31 F.S.A., and Canons of Ethics numbered 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 29, 30 and 32, 31 F.S.A., and additional rules numbered 1, 2, 27 and 30 Governing the Conduct of Attorneys, 31 F.S.A.
The referee recommended that the respondent “be suspended from the practice of law for the period of ninety (90) days” and “be required to * * * complete a course of study on legal ethics approved by the Supreme Court” failing which the suspension should become permanent. The referee further recommended that costs in the amount of $299.72 be assessed against the respondent.
The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar agreed in the main with the recommendations of the .referee but concluded that the respondent should be disbarred and should pay costs of the proceedings in the then sum of $550.62.
Among the referee’s observations was one that he had a “distinct impression * * that [the respondent] was not guilty of •wilful wrongdoing” which placed him “in the posture of more a fool than a knave.”
The thought that the respondent was not conscious of misconduct was also expressed by the attorney for The Florida Bar in his presentation to this court.
After careful study of the record this court has the view that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and thereafter until he shall have paid the costs then accrued and shall have convinced this court and the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar that he is fully rehabilitated and worthy of re-instatement as a member of The Florida Bar.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., dissent.
(dissenting).
I think the judgment of disbarment should stand.
(dissenting).
I would affirm judgment of Board of Governors.
THORNAL, Justice
(dissenting).
I think the judgment of disbarment should stand.
O’CONNELL, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm judgment of Board of Governors.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Migoski, 192 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1966)…PER CURIAM. The petitioner Walter J. Migoski was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years by order of this Court under date of April 22, 1964. State ex rel. v. Migoski, Fla., 163 So. 2d 497. After investigation and hearing pursuant to [*766] the integration rule, the Florida Bar, acting through its Board of Governors, has recommended that the petitioner Migoski be reinstated. The recommendation of the Bar is approved and the petitioner…