The Florida Bar v. Dale, 65894

• Decision Date: 23 October 1986
• Docket Number: No. 65894,65894
• Citation: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 547,496 So.2d 813
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 547 THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. James Albert DALE, III, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 813

496 So.2d 813

11 Fla. L. Weekly 547

THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. James Albert DALE, III, Respondent.

No. 65894.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 23, 1986.

Joseph J. Reiter, President, West Palm Beach, Ray Ferrero, Jr., President-elect, Ft. Lauderdale, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, John T. Berry, Staff Counsel and Mary Ellen Bateman, UPL Counsel, Tallahassee, and Robert M. Sondak, Chairman, Unlicensed Practice of Law Committee, Miami, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.

James Albert Dale, III, Gulf Breeze, in pro. per.

ADKINS, Justice.

Upon petition by The Florida Bar, this Court entered an order to show cause why respondent James Albert Dale, III, should not be enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida, and appointed a referee to evaluate the questions involved. Fla.Bar Integr.Rule, art. XVI. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

The Florida Bar's petition of September 14, 1984, alleged that Dale, while a member of the Mississippi Bar, was not "an active member of The Florida Bar in good standing" and should therefore be barred from the unauthorized practice of law in Florida under article II, section 2 of The Florida Bar Integration Rule. The petition contained the following allegations in support of the desired injunction:

1. On or about October 14, 1981, Bal Krishan Bahl and Abenamu Chaddah (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Bahl") sought to purchase property in Pensacola, Florida, known as the Palms Restaurant, owned at that time by Frank Barnes and represented through realtor C. Roslyn Farrell. After preliminary study of the purchase agreement, Bahl said he wanted an attorney and accountant to protect his interest, but he had only recently arrived in Pensacola and knew no attorneys or accountants. Farrell and her associates recommended that Bahl seek the services of Respondent, d/b/a Dale Title Company, whom he contacted at Respondent's office.... Respondent, a member of the Mississippi State Bar, never informed Bahl that he was not licensed to practice law in Florida. Respondent confirmed to Bahl that his company would write the title insurance and, acting as closing agent, would allocate what documents should be prepared by each side and determine closing costs. Respondent further proceeded to give Bahl business and legal advice regarding the purchase, on which advice Bahl relied to his detriment, as he lost $100,000 on his investment.

2. Subsequent to October 14, 1981, but prior to October 28, 1981, the parties involved in the sale and purchase of the Palms Restaurant, including Respondent, held a meeting. At that time, Bahl learned in a private conversation with Jeffrey T. Sauer, a Pensacola attorney, that Respondent was not authorized to practice law in Florida and that he was charging what Sauer felt to be a rather exorbitant fee for title insurance. Some time thereafter, Bahl confronted Respondent with the information he learned from Sauer; Respondent admitted to its veracity and told Bahl not to tell anyone and that he would continue to advise Bahl as to the pending business purchase. In addition, to keep the closing in his title company, Respondent promised to Bahl before the closing and paid to him after the closing a rebate of approximately $700 on the title insurance premium charged and collected at the closing, which was conducted at Respondent's office.

3. On or about November 1, 1984, John Frank Jackson, District Vice President of Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company, 312 South Bayland Street, Pensacola, Florida, stated that he knew of two occasions when Respondent intentionally disregarded the law which prohibits title insurance companies from writing casualty insurance, and overlooked title defects in order to sell a title insurance policy. One of these occasions involved the sale of property for construction of a condominium project, which property contained a single residency restriction. Respondent accepted the customer and wrote a policy with no exceptions and no affirmative commitment. The other occasion involved a piece of property which listed two Federal...