The Florida Bar v. Swanson, 33664

• Decision Date: 17 March 1965
• Docket Number: No. 33664,33664
• Citation: 172 So.2d 827
• Parties: THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Carl G. SWANSON, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 827

172 So.2d 827

THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Carl G. SWANSON, Respondent.

No. 33664.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 17, 1965.

S. Gordon Blalock, Jacksonville, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Lacy Mahon, Jr., of Mahon & Stratford, Jacksonville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The referee found the Respondent, Carl G. Swanson, to be guilty of failing properly to account for the sum of $100.00 paid to him by a client. Other charges were dismissed.

The referee recommended suspension from the practice for a period of three months and payment of costs of the proceeding. On review the Board of Governors affirmed the findings and recommendations of the referee and ordered suspension for three months.

Before us the Respondent contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of guilt and that, even if the evidence be found to be sufficient to support the finding, suspension from the practice for three months is excessive and unwarranted.

This proceeding grew out or Respondent's representation of a client, who apparently was the complaining witness before the Grievance Committee, in defense of a criminal charge, i. e., Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Beverages. The client paid Respondent a fee of $100.00 prior to trial. Respondent says this fee was for representation through the trial. At time of his arrest the client posted a $200.00 bail bond.

Subsequently, after jury trial the client was sentenced to a short jail sentence. Had the client followed Respondent's advice and let a previously entered plea of guilty stand he would have suffered only a fine and short term suspension of his driver's license.

After sentence, execution being suspended by a motion for new trial, it was decided--on whose advice is in dispute--that the client would not appear when required but would allow the previously posted bond to be estreated. This required that the bail bondsman be secured for the amount of the bond.

To accomplish this the client delivered $300.00 to Respondent who gave the client a receipt for $250.00 signed by the Respondent for the bondsman. The Respondent testified that the remaining $50.00 was paid to him as a fee for post trial work, and that the Respondent either gave or thought he gave the client a receipt therefor. The client testified that Respondent told him that the $50.00 was to go to the 'courthouse' to insure that when the bond was estreated the client would hear no more from the court and not be required to serve the jail sentence. (The scheme did not work and the client was required to serve the jail sentence as well as suffer loss of the bond.) He said Respondent gave him no receipt. He further stated that he did not agree to pay the Respondent the $50.00 as an additional fee.

The referee found that when the $300.00 was paid to Respondent both the client and Respondent thought that $250.00 was required to be paid to the bondsman to indemnify him for the estreature of the bond. On conflicting evidence he found, however, that only $200.00 was required to be and was paid to the bondsman by the Respondent. He further found that...