Case ID: so2d_287/html/0297-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. N. S. BURNS, Jr., Respondent.
    No. 43683.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 11, 1973.
    On Rehearing Oct. 3, 1973.
    
      Leonard Rivkind, Miami Beach, and Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
    Leonard C. Carter, Lakeland, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

On petition of The Florida Bar, this Court issued its order directing that the respondent, N. S. Burns, Jr., show cause why he should not be charged in contempt of this Court for the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Florida.

The petition alleged that respondent, a resident of Florida but not a member of The Florida Bar, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by the following acts:

“Respondent prepared an agreement for deed between Solon E. Bates and Evelyn J. Bates, his wife, and Harry E. McQuinn and Jacqueline Lee McQuinn, his wife, on or about February 20, 1969.
“Respondent prepared a satisfaction of mortgage deed between Margaret Mary Esser, a single woman, to Solon E. Bates and Evelyn J. Bates, his wife, on or about March 2, 1970.
“Respondent prepared a warranty deed between Howard Rogers and Marie Rogers, his wife, as grantors, to Barney F. Williams and Sylvia Ann Williams, his wife, as grantees, on or about March 29, 1971.
“Respondent prepared and filed a statement of claim and represented one Daniel Moore in the Small Claims Court of Pasco County, Florida, on or about February 2, 1972.”

The Rule to Show Cause, returnable May 21, 1973, was personally served upon respondent on May 3, 1973. No return, answer, or other pleading has been filed by respondent. Since no return has been made within the time permitted, the allegations of the petition shall be taken as true, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 4(d), of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A.

Therefore, it is our order, judgment and sentence that the respondent, N. S. Burns, Jr., is adjudged to be guilty of contempt of this Court; that the said N. S. Burns, Jr., shall pay to the Clerk of this Court as a fine the sum of three hundred dollars ($300.00); and that the said N. S. Burns, Jr., is permanently enjoined from further engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in this State.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ON REHEARING GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

Respondent, N. S. Burns, Jr., has petitioned this Court for a rehearing of its Order, dated July 11, 1973, adjudging him guilty of contempt of this Court for the unauthorized practice of law. We had earlier issued a Rule to Show Cause, upon the petition of The Florida Bar, to which no return had been filed by respondent. The allegations of the petition were taken as true, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 4(d), of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, and the judgment of contempt followed.

' Upon rehearing, it appears that attorney for respondent did mail to the clerk of this Court a timely return to the Rule to Show Cause, which return for some unknown reason never was received and filed. A copy of the return was also sent to the Chairman of The Florida Bar, and this copy was duly delivered.

In his return, respondent admitted the allegations of the Bar’s petition that he had on three occasions prepared deeds for other persons and had once prepared and filed a statement of claim and represented one Daniel Moore in a small claims court. Respondent averred, however, that he did not consider himself to have been engaged in the practice of law. He stated that the deeds were all standard-form documents and that he believed himself to be acting only as agent for Daniel Moore, his son-in-law.

On rehearing, therefore, we are disposed to withdraw our judgment of contempt and the fine which we originally ordered respondent to pay. Respondent is, however, permanently enjoined from further engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in this State.

It is so ordered.

■CARLTON, C. J., ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, and BOYD, JJ., concur.