THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE KASTENBAUM, 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 sought to discipline attorney George Kastenbaum following his federal felony conviction for interference with commerce by extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The Florida Supreme Court disbarred Kastenbaum, holding that a final federal conviction constitutes conclusive proof of guilt for disciplinary purposes under state bar rules.
The court held that under Article XI, Rule 11.07(4) of the Florida Bar Integration Rule, the final judgment entered by the United States District Court of Appeal is conclusive proof of the guilt of the offense charged, and therefore Kastenbaum must be disbarred from the practice of law.
[1] A final judgment of conviction for a felony constitutes conclusive proof of guilt for disciplinary purposes.
[2] A lawyer convicted of a felony may be disbarred from the practice of law.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Article XI, Rule 11.07(4), of the Integration Rule, provides that the final judgment entered by the United States District Court of Appeal shall be conclusive proof of the guilt of the offense charged.”
Establishes the governing rule that makes the federal conviction conclusive in bar disciplinary proceedings
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 12, 1970, George Kastenbaum was found guilty in federal court of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (interference with commerce by threats or viol…
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 Felony Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for consideration a petition of The Florida Bar seeking an appropriate judgment against George Kastenbaum, as provided in Article XI, Rule 11.07(4), in the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A.
On February 12, 1970, in Case No. 69-361-Cr-WM (United States of America v. George Kastenbaum), George Kastenbaum was found guilty of a felony in that he violated Section 1951, Title 18, United States Code. The pertinent part of this section says:
“Section 1951 Interference with commerce by threats or violence.
“(a) Whoever, in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both ....
“(b) (2) The term ‘extortion’ means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”
On December 9, 1970, this Court, 241 So.2d 688, entered an order suspending respondent from the practice of law. (Florida Bar v. Kastenbaum) Thereafter, respondent appealed his felony conviction to the United States Court of Appeal. Respondent filed for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and cer-tiorari was denied.
The Florida Bar filed a petition for notice to show cause under Article XI, Rule 11.07(4), and this Court issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why appropriate disciplinary judgment should not be entered. No return to this notice to show cause was filed by the respondent.
Article XI, Rule 11.07(4), of the Integration Rule, provides that the final judgment entered by the United States District Court of Appeal shall be conclusive proof of the guilt of the offense charged. The respondent is, therefore, disbarred from the practice of law.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Fla. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs (two cases). In re Admission OF Previously-Convicted Felons. In re George Kastenbaum, 341 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1976)…y, we have for consideration the petition of George Kastenbaum, formerly a member of The Florida Bar, who was convicted of a felony in federal court and was consequently disbarred from The Florida Bar on June 29, 1972. The Florida Bar v. Kastenbaum, 263 So. 2d 793 (Fla.1972). Kastenbaum seeks review of the refusal by the Board of Bar Examiners to accept and consider his application for admission to The Florida Bar on the basis that his civil rights have not been restored. Several similar questions have previ…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Kastenbaum, 241 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1970)