The Florida Bar v. Hirsch, 50149
| Decision Date | 17 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 50149,50149 |
| Parties | THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. David N. HIRSCH, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Stanley B. Powell, Bar Counsel, and David G. McGunegle, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.
David N. Hirsch, in pro. per.
DREW, Justice, Retired.
The Referee recommends that David N. Hirsch be suspended from the practice of law for three months for violating Integration Rule, Art. XI, Rule 11.02(2) and 11.02(4). Pertinent portions of his cogent and well reasoned findings are:
'I. THE PLEADINGS:
'The complaint charged that respondent received $3,311.51 from his client, in trust, for the express purpose of paying and satisfying said clients' obligation to a Tallahassee bank. When receiving said funds, respondent also received $131.00 for attorneys (sic) fees and recording fee for recording the clients' deed which was to be delivered by said bank, when the obligation of the client was fully paid.
'The clients' funds were placed in respondent's trust account together with funds of other clients. However, the said clients' debt to the bank was not promptly paid. The respondent's trust account was dissipated to the point where the account contained less than $3,311.51. At one point, it contained only $13.04.
'Thereafter the client, who had moved his family to Louisiana, made repeated requests and demands of respondent for performance of his duty. The client retained counsel in Louisiana who also made numerous demands for performance. On April 16, 1975 the respondent paid the obligation for his client and recorded the deed in question without further difficulty to the client or to Louisiana counsel. This happened several weeks after a complaint was made to the Florida Bar by Louisiana Counsel.
'II. THE EVIDENCE:
'Respondent has candidly admitted the foregoing facts. At final hearing he admitted the essential allegations of the complaint and the truth of the complainant's requests for admissions, which were received in evidence. He offered in evidence his statement in mitigation, based upon the following personal circumstances of respondent. His law office was disorganized and his secretary was incapable of keeping his financial records. At the time respondent was suffering from the emotional disquiet occasioned by marital problems which subsequently led to divorce. He further represented that he has since re-married (sic) and his family situation is now stable; his law office and financial records are now in order. He has throughout, continued to enjoy a favorable reputation in the community. The foregoing facts and recitals were presented at final hearing without dispute or objection by counsel, and I find them to be reasonable and believable. They are accepted as the basic facts of this case.
'III. PERSONAL HISTORY:
The Florida Bar recommends that the punishment here should be disbarment instead of suspension.
We cannot say that the record here establishes that this respondent is one that has been demonstrated to fall within that class of lawyers 'unworthy to practice law in this State' as provided in Integration Rule 11.02. Disbarment is the extreme and ultimate penalty in disciplinary proceedings. It occupies the same rung of the ladder in these proceedings as the death penalty in criminal proceedings. It is reserved, as the rule provides, for those who should not be permitted to associate with the honorable members of a great profession. But, in disciplinary proceedings, as in criminal proceedings,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Florida Bar v. Shoureas
...as the death penalty in criminal proceedings." Florida Bar v. Summers, 728 So.2d 739, 742 (Fla.1999) (quoting Florida Bar v. Hirsch, 342 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla.1977)). Given the facts of this case, we conclude that suspension and not disbarment is the proper sanction under the Florida Standard......
-
The Fla. BAR V. RATINER
...2d 1357 (Fla. 1997); Florida Bar v. Wasserman, 675 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1996); DeBock v. State, 512 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1987); Florida Bar v. Hirsch, 342 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1977); Florida Bar v. Thomson, 271 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1972); Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1970). However, it is e......
-
The Florida Bar v. Penn, 61228
...be clear that he is one who should never be at the bar, otherwise suspension is preferable." Murrell at 223; see also The Florida Bar v. Hirsch, 342 So.2d 970 (Fla.1977); The Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So.2d 130 (Fla.1970); State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Dunham, 134 So.2d 1 The disciplin......
-
The Florida Bar v. Summers, 90,566.
...sanction of disbarment is to be imposed only in those rare cases where rehabilitation is highly improbable."); The Florida Bar v. Hirsch, 342 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla. 1977) ("Disbarment is the extreme and ultimate penalty in disciplinary proceedings. It occupies the same rung of the ladder in t......