Case Title: In Re the Florida Bar

Citation: 355 So. 2d 766

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1978-02-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
355 So. 2d 766 (1978)
In re THE FLORIDA BAR.
In re Henry L. TURNER, III, d/b/a Physician's Administrative Services.
No. 48042.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 16, 1978.
*768 Lawrence J. Phalin, Bar Counsel, Orlando, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.
James W. Markel of Graham, Markel & Scott, Orlando, for respondent.
BY THE COURT.
The Florida Bar petitioned this Court to enjoin Henry L. Turner, III from the unauthorized practice of law, alleging that between 1967 and 1973 while Turner was a licensed life insurance agent and Chartered Life Underwriter, he gave legal advice in various ways to a number of doctors and medical groups. We appointed a referee to conduct hearings, to determine whether Turner had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and to report his findings and recommendations to us. In lieu of a hearing the parties entered into a stipulation of facts and applicable law, which the referee accepted. He then recommended to us that Turner be enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law.
Having reviewed the stipulation and the referee's report we conclude that Turner had between 1967 and 1973 engaged in the practice of law in his capacity as an insurance agent, while not a member of The Florida Bar, and we accept the referee's recommendation. Accordingly, Turner is permanently enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law and prohibited, among *769 other things, from evaluating and preparing legal forms and instruments, supplying legal forms with advice or instructions as to their use, and drafting legal instruments adapted to particular circumstances, such as corporate charters, by-laws, pension plans, employment agreements, health plans and trust agreements. Turner is further ordered to pay costs which were properly incurred by the bar.
As a matter of guidance to the bar and other professionals, we attach as an appendix to this opinion the conclusions of law to which both parties stipulated and which we approve.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and KARL, JJ., concur.
ADKINS and HATCHETT, JJ., dissent.