CARLTON L. WELCH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
A lawyer was held in contempt for abandoning his client during jury deliberations to keep a bowling date, leaving without court permission or adequate notice of his whereabouts. The court affirmed the contempt judgment and sentence, finding that the lawyer's frivolous reason and false claim of tacit court permission violated his professional obligations.
A lawyer who deliberately leaves his client without representation at the rendition of a verdict in a criminal proceeding, without permission or excuse, commits conduct inconsistent with professional obligations and contemptuous of the court. The lawyer's frivolous reason for abandonment and false claim of tacit consent support the contempt judgment and sentence.
[1] A lawyer who deliberately and without permission or excuse leaves his client without representation at the rendition of the verdict in a criminal proceeding commits an ac…
[2] A frivolous or contemptuous reason for abandoning a client and the court may support a judgment of contempt.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A lawyer who deliberately and without permission or excuse leaves his client without representation at the rendition of the verdict in a criminal proceeding commits an act which is inconsistent with his professional obligations and which may hinder and embarrass the orderly discharge of judicial functions.”
Establishes the core legal principle that abandoning a client at verdict is a contemptuous act violating professional duties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a criminal trial, the lawyer left his client unattended during jury deliberations to go bowling. The lawyer had mentioned his bowling date to t…
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 Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A lawyer appeals from a judgment of contempt and a sentence to pay a fine or be jailed, entered after appropriate proceedings on an order to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt for departing his client’s trial on a criminal charge, during the jury’s deliberations, without leave of court. The lawyer left to keep a bowling date. He claims to have supposed from a conversation with the judge, concerning his bowling date, his hope for an early verdict, and the possible sentence for his client, that he had the court’s tacit permission to leave his client unattended at the rendition of the verdict. The lawyer advised his client and the bailiff that he was going bowling, but left no other information concerning his whereabouts. The court reluctantly received the verdict in the lawyer’s absence.
A lawyer who deliberately and without permission or excuse leaves his client without representation at the rendition of the verdict in a criminal proceeding commits an act which is inconsistent with his professional obligations and which may hinder and embarrass the orderly discharge of judicial functions. See Krathen v. State, 310 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). No actual interruption or delay occurred, which mitigates appellant’s default. See In re Taylor, 240 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). But appellant’s reason for abandoning his client and the court was frivolous and contemptuous. Moreover, as the trial court found, the lawyer’s attribution of tacit consent to the court, given the conversation on which it was based, was “incredible.” See People v. McDonnell, 377 Ill. 568, 37 N.E. 2d 159 (1941). Taken as a whole, the evidence supports the judgment and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pantori, Inc. v. Stephenson, 384 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…resented, heard and decided with fairness. This purpose transcends the right of attorneys to be controlled in their conduct by the supreme court. It is unquestioned that a trial court may control an attorney for contemptuous conduct. Welch v. State, 359 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Williams v. State, 283 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). It may deny an attorney leave to withdraw from a case. See Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1971). Therefore, a trial court may decide, after consideration of a motion…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Carlton L. Welch, 369 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1979)…diately informed that the judge wished to see him. A contempt hearing was held, and respondent was found guilty and ordered to pay a $300 fine or spend fifteen days in county jail. Respondent’s conviction has been affirmed on appeal. Welch v. State, 359 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1978). We agree with the referee’s analysis of respondent Carlton Welch’s conduct. An attorney’s duty to his client in a case does not end when the jury retires to decide the client’s fate. Often a…
-
Frost v. State, 430 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Welch v. State, 359 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).…
Authorities Cited
- Krathen v. State, 310 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- In re Contempt of Brooks Taylor, 240 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)