Title: The Florida Bar v. Irizarry

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

268 So. 2d 377 (1972)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner,
v.
Fred IRIZARRY, Respondent.
No. 42493.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 18, 1972.
*378 Leonard Rivkind, Miami Beach, and Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Fred Irizarry, in pro. per.
PER CURIAM.
On petition of The Florida Bar, this Court issued its order directing that the Respondent, Fred Irizarry, who is not a member of The Florida Bar, show cause why he should not be held in contempt of this Court for violation of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar heretofore adopted by this Court, and why he should not be enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law.
In its petition, The Florida Bar charged that Respondent, a resident of Florida, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by the following act:
By letter following notice to show cause, Respondent admitted the above violation and requested this Court to issue its injunction restraining further violations of Article II, Section 2 of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A.
In Florida Bar v. Town, 174 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1965), quoting the earlier decision of this Court in State of Florida ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962), we said:
As concerns the preparation of legal instruments in real estate transactions, we have limited the permissible scope of activities of real estate brokers to preliminary negotiations and preparation of the contract. We have said that where the broker has no interest in the transaction except as a broker, he may not complete standard conveyancing forms such as deed, mortgages, notes, assignments and satisfactions. Keyes Co. v. Dade County Bar Association, 46 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1950); Cooperman v. West Coast Title Company, 75 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1954); and Florida Bar v. Teitelman, 261 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1972).
The record does not disclose whether or not Respondent is a licensed real estate broker, but this is immaterial inasmuch as at least one of the instruments prepared by Respondent (e.g. the Warranty Deed) is prohibited to brokers and nonbrokers alike. Therefore we hold that the Respondent Fred Irizarry did engage in activities definable as the "practice of law" in Florida although he was not then and is not now a member of The Florida Bar; accordingly, it is ordered that Respondent be permanently enjoined and restrained from the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Florida.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.