The Florida Bar v. Nesbitt, 80046

• Decision Date: 21 October 1993
• Docket Number: No. 80046,80046
• Parties: 18 Fla. L. Weekly S555 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. William C. NESBITT, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 190

626 So.2d 190

18 Fla. L. Weekly S555

THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. William C. NESBITT, Respondent.

No. 80046.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 21, 1993.

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, John T. Berry, Staff Counsel and Alisa M. Smith, Bar Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.

William C. Nesbitt, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding in which the respondent, William C. Nesbitt, seeks review of the referee's recommended disciplinary action of a ninety-one-day suspension for the negligent maintenance of his trust account records. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 15, Fla. Const.

This proceeding commenced with a complaint filed by The Florida Bar alleging that Nesbitt committed several trust-accounting procedure violations. The referee found that during 1989 Nesbitt failed to maintain an interest-bearing trust account with interest payable to The Florida Bar Foundation; that Nesbitt failed to comply with the rules regulating trust accounts by failing to maintain a separate cash receipts and disbursements journal; that Nesbitt failed to record reasons for trust account receipts and disbursements; that he failed to maintain proper records identifying each client or matter concerning funds received, disbursed, or transferred; that he failed to diligently handle the service charges on his trust account; and that he disbursed uncollected funds from his trust account. This proceeding was filed as a result of an audit conducted by the Bar after the commencement of another disciplinary proceeding in which we publicly reprimanded Nesbitt for client neglect. See The Fla. Bar v. Nesbitt, 583 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1991) (approval by order of referee's recommendation of public reprimand). No intentional taking of client funds, dishonesty, or client complaint or injury was found by the referee nor asserted by the Bar in this case.

In arguing for a ninety-one-day suspension, which would require Nesbitt to prove rehabilitation before he could resume his practice of law, the Bar acknowledged that there were numerous cases imposing public reprimands followed by two-year probationary terms for the failure to properly maintain trust account records and an IOTA account. The Bar asserts, however, that the aggravating circumstances in this case justify the imposition of a ninety-one day suspension and identifies the aggravating circumstances as: (1) Nesbitt's neglect of legal matters for clients for which he received a public reprimand in Nesbitt; (2) his failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements; (3) his failure to timely pay his Bar dues; and (4) his uncooperative attitude in this disciplinary proceeding.

The prior disciplinary proceeding before this Court concerned the neglect of two client matters in which Nesbitt (1)...