Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Harris

Citation: 400 So. 2d 1220

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1981-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
400 So. 2d 1220 (1981)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Benny R.S. HARRIS, Respondent.
No. 59184.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 9, 1981.
David G. McGunegle, Branch Staff Counsel, Orlando, and John A. Boggs, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.
E.G. Musleh, Ocala, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against Benny R.S. Harris, is before us on a petition for review of the report of the referee. The referee's report and record have been filed with this Court pursuant to Fla.Bar Integr.Rule, article XI, Rule 11.06(9)(b). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
The referee's findings of fact are as follows:
The referee then recommended that respondent be found guilty of each count of the complaints. He then recommended that respondent *1222 be suspended from the practice of law for thirty-six months and continuously thereafter until he has made satisfactory restitution, paid all costs of this proceeding, and until he demonstrates to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and to the Supreme Court of Florida that he is entitled to be reinstated in the practice of law by successfully passing the bar examination subsequent to his thirty-six month suspension.
It is evident from the findings of the referee that respondent has engaged in a continuing and irresponsible pattern of conversion of clients' trust funds to his own use, failure to account for clients' trust funds and failure to maintain trust records. Respondent's actions demonstrate an attitude wholly inconsistent with the high professional standards of the legal profession. We feel that under these circumstances, the penalty of disbarment is more appropriate than the suspension recommended by the referee.
We discussed the purposes of discipline in The Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130, 132 (Fla. 1970):
We feel that in this situation the purposes of discipline, as set forth in Pahules will be met by disbarment.
Other cases similar to the case at bar include The Florida Bar v. Bassett, 369 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1979) (disbarment warranted in view of seven separate probable cause cases involving allegations of blatant misuse of clients' trust funds); The Florida Bar v. Duffy, 369 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1979) (misappropriation of trust funds warranted disbarment); and The Florida Bar v. Mattingly, 342 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1977) (improper transfers from client's trust account, resulting in shortages, warranted disbarment). Considering these similar cases and considering our pronouncement in The Florida Bar v. Breed, 378 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1979), that we would not be reluctant to disbar an attorney for commingling, misuse, and misappropriation of clients' funds, it is the order of this Court that this disbarment be effective thirty days after the filing of this order, thereby giving respondent thirty days to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients. It is further ordered that respondent shall not accept any new business, and that all costs of these proceedings be charged to the respondent in the amount of $1,636.40.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.