The Florida Bar v. Bergman, 67735
| Decision Date | 10 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 67735,67735 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 608,517 So.2d 11 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 608 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Larry R. BERGMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and David G. McGunegle, Branch Staff Counsel and Jan K. Wichrowski, Bar Counsel, Orlando, for complainant.
Larry R. Bergman, in pro. per., Arvada, Colo., for respondent.
This disciplinary proceeding is again before the Court for consideration of an uncontested referee's report. We approve the report.
On August 21, 1986, we issued an order approving the report of the referee finding attorney Larry R. Bergman guilty of professional misconduct. We also adopted the recommended discipline of a six-month suspension. The misconduct found was the neglect of a client's legal business. There was no petition for review.
Following the rendition of this Court's judgment, respondent filed a motion for rehearing stating that he had not received sufficient notice of the disciplinary proceedings. He represented that he would have contested the Bar's charges if he had been afforded proper notice of the proceedings. We granted rehearing and remanded the case to the referee for a determination of whether sufficient notice had been provided.
On remand, the referee found that The Florida Bar had effected proper notice and service of its complaint and other pleadings to the respondent in that they were sent in the prescribed manner to respondent's record bar address. * The referee found further that respondent had actual notice of the fact that in August 1985, a grievance committee had found probable cause for further proceedings. Moreover, the referee found, The Florida Bar attempted to locate the respondent for purposes of service of process when it was discovered that he was not practicing or residing at his record bar address, but that this good-faith attempt was unsuccessful.
The referee offered the following opinion in reply to the respondent's contention that the Bar should have conducted a more thorough investigation in the effort to locate him:
It would be unduly burdensome to expect The Florida Bar to find every respondent who chooses to move and not notify The Florida Bar of his whereabouts. Further, if actual notice was made mandatory, a respondent could avoid prosecution simply by making himself unavailable to The Florida Bar service, presenting an obvious threat to the protection of the public.
The referee also found that, by respondent's own admission, he had failed to notify The Florida Bar of his address.
Respondent does not challenge the referee's findings. The report of the referee on remand is hereby approved. We therefore adhere to our previous judgment approving the referee's findings of guilt by violation of Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(2) () and 6-101(A...
To continue reading
Request your trial