Title: The Florida Bar v. Fath

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

368 So. 2d 357 (1979)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Ronald J. FATH, Respondent.
No. 55613.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 22, 1979.
Anita F. Dahlquist, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Joel D. Eaton, Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant.
No appearance for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against Ronald J. Fath, a member of The Florida Bar, is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and report of the referee. The referee's report and record were duly filed with this Court pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.06(9)(b). No petition for review has been *358 filed but we are nevertheless required to review the report of the referee. Fla.Bar Integr.Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.09(3)(f).
The findings of fact and recommendations of the referee in pertinent part are as follows:
Having carefully reviewed the record, we find the allegations of the complaint to be proved by clear and convincing evidence and, therefore, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee. See Florida Bar v. Blaha, 366 So. 2d 433 at 438 (Fla. 1978); Florida Bar v. Timson, 257 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1971); Florida Bar v. Taylor, 201 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1967).
Accordingly, respondent, Ronald J. Fath, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, with automatic reinstatement at the end of this period. However, such automatic reinstatement is conditioned upon payment by respondent of the costs of this proceeding and restitution to his client in the amount of $460, as provided by Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.02(2).
The suspension shall be effective on March 26, 1979, thereby giving respondent time to close out his practice and take the necessary steps to protect his clients, and it is ordered that respondent shall not accept any new business.
Costs in the amount of $347.20 found by this Court to have been reasonably incurred by The Florida Bar are hereby taxed against the respondent.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and BOYD, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.