The Florida Bar, 52658

Decision Date21 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 52658,52658
Citation382 So.2d 650
PartiesTHE FLORIDA BAR. Petition of Gregory M. PAHULES.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Judith H. Hayes of Heiman, Krieger, Freidin & Silber, Miami, for petitioner.

Neil J. Berman, Bar Counsel, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Pahules, a suspended member of The Florida Bar, has petitioned for reinstatement to membership in good standing in The Florida Bar. The matter was referred to a referee, who recommended that the petition be denied. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar concurs in that recommendation. It is this Court's duty to enter an appropriate judgment. Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const.; Fla.Bar Integr. Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.11(10).

Mr. Pahules was suspended March 18, 1970, for a period of six months and thereafter until he could demonstrate rehabilitation. The misconduct at issue then was misuse of a client's funds. The Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So.2d 130 (Fla.1970). In this proceeding The Florida Bar had recommended disbarment.

Subsequent to his suspension, the petitioner was convicted of at least two counts of grand larceny and four counts of petit larceny. The conduct which gave rise to the convictions took place around the time of his suspension. He received a number of sentences of imprisonment in county jail, which were served concurrently. After serving a year of imprisonment, he was placed on probation. His probation continues until June, 1982. Among the conditions of his probation is an obligation to make full restitution to the victims of his crimes.

Following his release from county jail, the petitioner, in 1973, worked for a newspaper. From May, 1973 to January, 1975, he worked as a restaurant manager. During 1975 he was employed by an automobile dealership and a bail bond agency. From 1975 until the present time he has been employed as a law clerk in the office of a practicing Florida attorney.

During the period from 1967 to 1970, a number of complaints against Mr. Pahules were filed with The Florida Bar. The Bar initiated a number of different grievance proceedings. These various proceedings progressed independently. One disciplinary proceeding culminated in the judgment of suspension. Apparently the Bar then discontinued investigation and prosecution of other alleged instances of misconduct. The judgment imposing the discipline of suspension was rendered prior to the petitioner's criminal convictions. Had these other instances of misconduct and the criminal convictions arising from them been before the Court at the time it was imposing discipline on the petitioner, the discipline imposed would almost certainly have been more severe than six months suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon proof of rehabilitation.

The petitioner did not seek reinstatement until September, 1977. The question before us is whether he is fit to resume the practice of law.

The referee held hearings on March 21, 1978 and on April 10, 1978. Both parties had the opportunity to present evidence.

The Florida Bar advertised the subject matter of the hearing in the Miami Review, a legal newspaper. Article XI, Rule 11.11(6)(b) contemplates that any interested persons and any local bar association may appear at the hearing to speak in support of or in opposition to the petition. No one appeared or requested to appear in opposition to the petition.

After reciting the substance of the testimony of various witnesses and that of the petitioner, the referee stated:

Attached to the Petition are a number of letters from reputable attorneys and individuals commenting on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re Culpepper
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 15 d1 Julho d1 1991
    ...probation should be readmitted to the practice of law before he has completed serving that sentence. In The Florida Bar Petition of Pahules, 382 So.2d 650 (Fla.1980), an attorney who had been convicted of, and sentenced to incarceration on, two counts of grand larceny and four counts of pet......
  • In re Lazcano
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 8 d5 Janeiro d5 2010
    ...933, 264 Cal.Rptr. 361, 782 P.2d 602, 607 (1989) (admission); In re Dortch, 860 A.2d 346, 362-63 (D.C.2004) (admission); In re Pahules, 382 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla.1980) (reinstatement); In re Thompson, 365 N.W.2d 262, 265 (Minn. 1985) (reinstatement); In re Walgren, 104 Wash.2d 557, 708 P.2d 3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT