Title: The Florida Bar v. Oxner

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

431 So. 2d 983 (1983)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Jerry E. OXNER, Respondent.
No. 62454.

Supreme Court of Florida.
April 21, 1983.
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1983.
*984 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and Stanley A. Spring, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Jacquelyn Plasner Needelman, Bar Counsel, Fort Lauderdale, for complainant.
Phillip T. Crenshaw of Crenshaw & Crenshaw, Lake Worth, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This is an action initiated by The Florida Bar against the respondent, Jerry E. Oxner, in which the Bar claims, and the referee found, that the respondent was guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4), Disciplinary Rule 7-102(A)(5), and Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5). Although the respondent has sought review, we approve, endorse, and accept the referee's report, findings, and recommendations. Because we find this case significant as it relates to a dereliction of responsibility of an attorney to the court, we publish the referee's full report, with his recommendations and reasons therefor. The report reads as follows:
We would emphasize the importance of a judge's being able to rely on representations made by counsel. A lawyer should never mislead the court. This lawyer's image in the eyes of all judges is tarnished for a long time. All attorneys should take heed to avoid making the mistakes he did.
Commencing thirty days from the filing of this opinion, Jerry E. Oxner shall stand suspended as a member of The Florida Bar for sixty days. During said time he shall not engage in the practice of law in any manner. He is directed to pay costs in the sum of $1,159.51 within thirty days of the filing of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
ADKINS, Justice, concurring and dissenting in part.
I concur in the finding that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules, but I dissent as to the punishment. There is no evil or fraudulent intent on the part of respondent shown in the record.
He acknowledged his wrongful statements to Judge Fine without qualification. Respondent is a family man with children and has been practicing law since 1971. There have been no prior disciplinary proceedings brought against him. A sixty-day punishment exceeds the reasonable necessity to preserve the purity of the Bar.
In my opinion, a public reprimand is appropriate.