Title: The Florida Bar v. Wagner
Citation: 212 So. 2d 770
Docket Number: 36570
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: July 17, 1968

212 So. 2d 770 (1968)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Maurice WAGNER, Respondent.
No. 36570.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 17, 1968.
*771 Walter A. Shelley, Daytona Beach, and Robert B. Kane, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, complainant.
Daniel L. Ginsberg, Harold Ungerleider, Miami Beach, Richard D. Bertone and Michael A. Pelle, No. Miami Beach, for respondent.
THORNAL, Justice.
In this disciplinary matter, the respondent, Maurice Wagner, a member of The Florida Bar was charged with violating the Canons of Professional Ethics by:
(1) Failing to make prompt disbursement of and accounting for trust funds in his custody as the result of his representation of clients in four negligence cases.
(2) Wrongfully failing and refusing to pay numerous items of medical expenses and expert witness fees in the same four cases.
In response to interrogatories the Bar specified that it claimed violations of Canon 11, Canons of Professional Ethics; Rule 1, Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of *772 Attorneys in Florida, and Article XI, Rules 11.02(3) (a) and 11.02(4), Integration Rule of The Florida Bar.
Respondent denied the allegations of the complaint. He asserted that all trust funds received on behalf of his clients had been properly disbursed pursuant to their instructions.
Each of the four cases involved alleged delays in disbursing the proceeds of settlements in negligence cases. In each case the client was paid his share almost immediately upon receipt of the money by Mr. Wagner. It is claimed that the lawyer retained portions of the proceeds of settlements for the purpose of paying doctors' bills and expert witness fees. The Bar then contends that he improperly delayed disbursing the funds to the embarrassment of his clients. It is asserted that this conduct reflected adversely on the reputation of the profession in the community, and particularly disturbed the otherwise harmonious relationship between the medical and legal professions.
The matter was referred to Hon. Paul E. Raymond as referee. After hearings which produced a record comprising 728 pages of testimony and 88 exhibits, the referee exonerated the respondent completely from any semblance of wrong in two of the cases. In the other two, he found that respondent did not promptly disburse funds to pay certain medical bills and an expert witness fee. The bills were ultimately paid but only after the current investigation was initiated, and even then, approximately 16-21 months after the lawyer received the funds for disbursement. The referee recommended a 30 day suspension and assessment of costs totaling $2,176.18. The Board of Governors filed a judgment in accord with the recommendations of the referee. The respondent Wagner petitions for review.
Canon 11, supra, provides in part:
Rule 1, supra, provides:
The provisions of the Integration Rule cited at the outset merely supplement the quoted Canons.
We have examined the briefs of the parties. They consist almost entirely of an exchange of views regarding the impact of the evidence and the weight that should be accorded various espects of it. In disciplinary matters, the ultimate judgment remains with this Court. However, the initial fact-finding responsibility is imposed upon the referee. His findings of fact should be accorded substantial weight. They should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Bass, 106 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1958). In this instance the conclusions of the referee were particularly lucid, and, with approval, we quote from them in part, as follows:
We concur in the referee's "conception of the ethical principles involved". We do not feel that they are too exacting. However, in view of all of the circumstances it is our view that actual suspension from the practice for the suggested thirty day period is not necessary to accomplish discipline which is fair to the public, the profession and the lawyer involved. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Dawson, 111 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1959). We think it sufficient to reprimand the respondent and warn him to be more circumspect with the handling of his accounts in the future. The filing of this opinion shall constitute such a reprimand and warning.
In addition the Bar recommended that respondent be required to pay the costs in the amount of $2,176.18. In view of the conclusions reached by the referee, we think it fair that only one-half the costs be borne by the accused lawyer. The respondent is therefore ordered to pay as his share of the costs the sum of $1,088.09 and a judgment for this amount is entered in favor of The Florida Bar.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C.J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.