THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ELLIS RUBIN, 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.
Ellis Rubin, an attorney, was disciplined by The Florida Bar for instructing his secretary to falsely insert her name as translator in divorce complaints when she was not the actual translator. The Florida Supreme Court set aside the Board of Governors' disciplinary recommendation and dismissed the proceeding, finding insufficient grounds to jeopardize his professional standing given the semi-charity nature of the cases and absence of fraud or moral turpitude.
The Court held that Rubin's conduct did not constitute sufficient grounds for imposing professional discipline. While the Board of Governors found violations of Rule 30 and Canon 47, the Supreme Court determined that the irregularities were not material violations of professional ethics or state law, and dismissed the proceedings without imposing sanctions.
“This is not a case where respondent has been guilty of moral turpitude, he has not defrauded anyone and there is a complete absence of falsifying records and perpetrating any wrong upon the Court.”
Establishes the Court's rationale that the conduct lacked the culpability required for discipline by noting absence of fraud, moral turpitude, and falsification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Rubin had a secretary insert her name as translator in five divorce complaints where she was not the actual translator. The complaints invo…
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 Professional Ethics cases and more on FLexlaw
Respondent Ellis S. Rubin has appealed from a recommendation of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar Association dated September 6, 1967.
The Referee found the respondent guilty of instructing his secretary to insert her name as translator in five divorce complaints whereas she was not in fact the actual translator and therefore respondent was in violation of Rule 30 of the Code of Ethics, 32 F.S.A., for which the Referee recommended respondent be given a private reprimand and ordered to pay the costs of $919.50. The referee found the respondent not guilty of certain other charges in the Bar’s complaint.
On review the Board of Governors approved the Referee’s finding of guilt under Rule 30. The Board then proceeded to find respondent guilty of Canon 47 which provides that no lawyer shall permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by any law agency, personal or corporate.
Thereupon the Board of Governors directed that respondent be publicly reprimanded and that he pay the aforesaid cost item.
We have had the record before us, able briefs prepared and also oral argument from the Florida Bar Association.
From the whole record it becomes evident to us that this whole controversy started when a group of Cuban refugees were directed from one lawyer’s office to respondent’s office for the purpose of getting a divorce. It is true there were some irregularities but in no instance do we find any basic or essential violation of the ethics of the profession or the laws of our State. These cases were all semi-charity cases. The legal profession by and large has shown a willingness to be helpful to these unfortunate people who are handicapped languagewise as well as financially.
This is not a case where respondent has been guilty of moral turpitude, he has not defrauded anyone and there is a complete absence of falsifying records and perpetrating any wrong upon the Court.
Our conclusion is that it would be very unjust to jeopardize respondent’s professional standing. It would likewise be wrong to impose the burden of paying a substantial cost bill for this record.
Our judgment is that the findings of the Board of Governors be set aside and the proceedings dismissed.
So ordered.
ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ., and SPEC-TOR, District Court Judge, concur.
CALDWELL, C. J., dissents.