The Florida Bar v. Scott
Decision Date | 05 April 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 35928,35928 |
Citation | 197 So.2d 518 |
Parties | THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Alfred C. SCOTT, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Steven A. Werber, Jacksonville, for The Florida Bar, complainant.
Gerald R. Hart, Jacksonville, for respondent.
The respondent in this case was charged by The Florida Bar with having been guilty of the violation of Canons 27 and 28 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rule 19 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida, 31 F.S.A. in that he did, on February 6, 1964, in Putnam County, Florida, individually and through his agent, Walter M. Limbric, who was acting within the scope of his agency, actively solicit professional employment from Mrs. Ernest Lee Kaymore, Mrs. Obediah McCaskell, Mrs. Richard Junior Hodges, Mrs. W. A. Johnson and Mrs. Aaron Woods to represent each of said persons or any one of them in connection with any claims for damages arising out of the wrongful death of their husbands on or about February 4, 1964. Respondent filed his answer to these charges and extensive hearings were conducted before the Honorable Davisson S. Dunlap, a referee appointed by this Court for the purpose of hearing complaints of the character here under consideration. These hearings consumed a good part of two days and the record here consists of some 280 pages of testimony. There is some conflict in the evidence but, under the Integration Rule, the referee is the officer of this Court responsible for reconciling such conflicts and making his findings of fact and recommendations therefrom. The pertinent portions of his findings and recommendations follow:
'After considering all of the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that:
'1. On February 6, 1964, the respondent went to Palatka, Florida, accompanied by Robert Corley, a commercial photographer, to meet with Rev. Limbric, a bail bondsman and Negro preacher. The purpose of the meeting was to establish contact with certain widows living in Palatka, Florida, whose husbands had been killed in an accident on February 4, 1964, and to secure the legal representation for the respondent of the claims arising out of the accident.
'2. After a conference between the respondent and Rev. Limbric, a procedure was set up by which W. M. Limbric would go to the widow's respective homes and ascertain 'if they were all right to talk.' If so, Rev. Limbric would find out if they wanted to retain the respondent's services. If so, the respondent would be notified by Limbric and the respondent would enter the home of the widows and discuss his legal representation of the widow and the estate of their deceased husbands in respect to the claims arising from the accident. The respondent followed Rev. Limbric in his car as he went from place to place.
'(b) The respondent solicited professional employment by personal communications and interviews not warranted by personal relations.
'(c) The respondent attempted to and did breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries.
'* * *
'RECOMMENDATION OF GUILT
...
To continue reading
Request your trial