Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Retureta-Cabrera

Citation: 322 So. 2d 28

Docket Number: 44003

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1975-07-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
322 So. 2d 28 (1975)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner,
v.
Jesus Secundino RETURETA-CABRERA, Respondent.
No. 44003.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 30, 1975.
E. Richard Alhadeff, Leonard Rivkind, Miami Beach, Marshall R. Cassedy, Executive Director, Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, David W. Walters, Miami, and William B. Wiley, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Neal R. Sonnett, Bierman & Sonnett, Miami, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on the petition of The Florida Bar filed pursuant to Article XVI of the Integration Rule and charging Respondent with the unauthorized practice of law. Article II, Section 2, of the Integration Rule provides:
Our jurisdiction to prohibit the unauthorized practice of law stems from Article V, Section 15, Florida Constitution, which provides that this Court "shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law... ." This constitutional authority necessarily includes the power to prevent the unauthorized practice of law.[1]
We issued a Rule to Show Cause, to which Respondent filed his answer; thereafter, this Court appointed Judge Francis X. Knuck as Referee and directed that he hold such hearings and take such testimony as might be necessary to establish the facts of the case. After a hearing before the Referee the parties negotiated a formal settlement and presented the following stipulation to the Referee:
Based thereon, the Referee made the following recommendation:
The record and the report of the Referee have been examined by this Court. We hereby approve the Referee's finding of guilt and adopt his recommendation that Respondent be restrained from the unauthorized practice of law. We do, therefore, issue a permanent injunction restraining Respondent from the preparation of immigration and naturalization forms for others, with or without charge, from advertising or holding himself out to perform such services, and from otherwise engaging in the practice of law within the state of Florida.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C.J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
[1]  State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962), judgment vacated on other grounds 373 U.S. 379, 83 S. Ct. 1322, 10 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1963).