Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Leopold

Citation: 320 So. 2d 819

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1975-10-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
320 So. 2d 819 (1975)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Frederick O. LEOPOLD, Respondent.
No. 47650.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 15, 1975.
Wilson J. Foster, Jr., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Gordon, Fort Lauderdale, for The Florida Bar, Complainant.
Thomas A. Thomas, Hollywood, for respondent.
*820 PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against Frederick O. Leopold is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and report of the referee. Pursuant to Rule 11.06(9)(b) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the referee's report and record of the proceedings were duly filed with this Court. No petition for review pursuant to Rule 11.09, Integration Rule, has been filed by respondent Leopold.
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against respondent in October, 1973, charging that respondent failed to file a claim with the Florida Industrial Commission on behalf of Mrs. Angerami; or if said claim was filed, he failed to diligently prosecute the claim to final hearing within the prescribed statutory period. The complaint further charged that respondent attempted to limit his liability to Mrs. Angerami. Hearings were held on February 26, 1975 and May 2, 1975, before the referee, who after considering the pleadings, exhibits and evidence, found, as follows:
Relative to the charge of respondent's attempting to limit his liability, the referee found:
The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty as charged in the complaint of violating his oath as an attorney, Article XI, Rule 11.02(2), and specifically Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A) (3), and 6-102(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommends that a public reprimand be administered to respondent.
The findings and recommendations of the referee are approved and this opinion shall constitute a public reprimand of respondent.
Execution is hereby directed to issue for costs against respondent in the amount of $962.30.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C.J., and ROBERTS, OVERTON, ENGLAND and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents.