The Florida Bar v. Rood, No. 83768

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; KOGAN; OVERTON
Citation678 So.2d 1277
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly S355 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Edward B. ROOD, Respondent.
Decision Date29 August 1996
Docket NumberNo. 83768

Page 1277

678 So.2d 1277
21 Fla. L. Weekly S355
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Edward B. ROOD, Respondent.
No. 83768.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 29, 1996.

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Corsmeier, Assistant Staff Counsel, Tampa, for Complainant.

Edward B. Rood, Tampa, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar (the Bar) and the referee's report regarding alleged ethical breaches by Edward B. Rood. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We approve the report and disbar Rood.

The Court suspended Rood from the practice of law in Florida for two years in 1993 and for an additional consecutive year in 1994. Florida Bar v. Rood, 633 So.2d 7 (Fla.1994); Florida Bar v. Rood, 622 So.2d 974 (Fla.1993). The Bar subsequently filed a petition to show cause why Rood should not be disbarred for continuing to practice during the suspension period.

The referee found that Rood failed to notify all his clients of his suspension and that during the suspension period he continued to meet with, represent and advise clients, and continued to receive and disburse client funds from his bank accounts. The record

Page 1278

contains documentary exhibits and testimony from Rood's former clients that support these findings. We approve the referee's findings of fact.

The referee made the following recommendations as to guilt and discipline:

Recommendations as to Guilt: I recommend that Respondent be found Guilty of violating the suspension order of the Florida Supreme Court dated June 24, 1993, and violation of the suspension order of the Florida Supreme Court entered January 20, 1994, in that Respondent continued to practice law by meeting with and advising clients, and maintaining his trust account, and using personal and non-lawyer business accounts to receive and disburse client funds.

Recommendation of Disciplinary Measures to be Applied: In view of the seriousness of the charges, it is recommended that Respondent be disbarred from the practice of law with no application for readmission sooner than five years.

We find that the recommendations of guilt are adequately supported in the record and that the recommended discipline is appropriate for violating this Court's suspension order. We approve the report in its entirety. Edward B. Rood is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Florida effective upon the filing of this opinion. He may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Von Eiff v. Azicri, No. 96-3273
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 17, 1997
    ...a showing of harm in the context of an intact family did not change any other application of the best interests test. 3 Beagle, 678 So.2d at 1277. Hence, it is manifest that the Court did not intend for the demonstrable harm requirement to extend to situations, such as the provision at issu......
  • Von Eiff v. Azicri, No. 91647
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 12, 1998
    ...analysis, that it might in many instances be 'better' or 'desirable' for a child to maintain contact with a grandparent." 678 So.2d at 1277 (quoting Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189, 454 S.E.2d 769, 773-74 As quoted in Hawk: If the courts attempt to resolve these disputes when the only thin......
  • The Florida Bar v. Shoureas, No. SC03-1194.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 12, 2005
    ...v. Winter, 549 So.2d 188 (Fla.1989). 5. The cases cited by the Bar to support disbarment are all distinguishable. See Fla. Bar v. Rood, 678 So.2d 1277, 1278 (Fla.1996) (disbarring lawyer who violated both a two-year suspension order and an additional-year suspension order by continuing "to ......
  • Fla. Bar v. Bosecker, No. SC16-1387
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 27, 2018
    ...disbarment for continuing to practice law while under suspension include Forrester , 916 So.2d at 654–55, and The Florida Bar v. Rood , 678 So.2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 1996).Lastly, Bosecker argues that "[t]he rules treat suspended attorneys that are working as a legal assistant differently than......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Von Eiff v. Azicri, No. 96-3273
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 17, 1997
    ...a showing of harm in the context of an intact family did not change any other application of the best interests test. 3 Beagle, 678 So.2d at 1277. Hence, it is manifest that the Court did not intend for the demonstrable harm requirement to extend to situations, such as the provision at issu......
  • Von Eiff v. Azicri, No. 91647
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 12, 1998
    ...analysis, that it might in many instances be 'better' or 'desirable' for a child to maintain contact with a grandparent." 678 So.2d at 1277 (quoting Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189, 454 S.E.2d 769, 773-74 As quoted in Hawk: If the courts attempt to resolve these disputes when the only thin......
  • The Florida Bar v. Shoureas, No. SC03-1194.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 12, 2005
    ...v. Winter, 549 So.2d 188 (Fla.1989). 5. The cases cited by the Bar to support disbarment are all distinguishable. See Fla. Bar v. Rood, 678 So.2d 1277, 1278 (Fla.1996) (disbarring lawyer who violated both a two-year suspension order and an additional-year suspension order by continuing "to ......
  • Fla. Bar v. Bosecker, No. SC16-1387
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 27, 2018
    ...disbarment for continuing to practice law while under suspension include Forrester , 916 So.2d at 654–55, and The Florida Bar v. Rood , 678 So.2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 1996).Lastly, Bosecker argues that "[t]he rules treat suspended attorneys that are working as a legal assistant differently than......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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