Title: The Florida Bar v. Whitlock
Citation: 426 So. 2d 955
Docket Number: 60445
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 27, 1982

426 So. 2d 955 (1982)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
William E. WHITLOCK, III, Respondent.
No. 60445.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 27, 1982.
Rehearing Denied March 10, 1983.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and Stanley A. Spring, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Michael C. Whittington and John A. Boggs, Bar Counsels, Tampa, of The Florida Bar, for complainant.
Richard T. Earle, Jr. of Earle &amp; Earle, St. Petersburg, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the report and recommendation of the referee in the case of The Florida Bar v. William E. Whitlock, III. Jurisdiction is pursuant to article V, section 15, Florida Constitution.
The report of the referee included the following findings.
The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty as to all counts, and that he be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida.
We do not feel that the misconduct in this case, when considered with punishment imposed on other attorneys for similar misconduct, is sufficient to justify disbarment. See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Bryan, 396 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1981); The Florida Bar v. Allen, 355 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1978); The Florida Bar v. Blalock, 325 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1976); The Florida Bar v. DuBois, 322 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1975); The Florida Bar v. Weaver, 279 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1973); The Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1970).
Furthermore, the record discloses the following facts in mitigation:
We find that in this case a three-year suspension with proper proof of rehabilitation is the proper penalty. Accordingly, William E. Whitlock, III, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for three years and may then be readmitted only upon proper proof of his rehabilitation. The suspension shall be effective June 28, 1982, 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 $2,421.50 plus any other costs that have been incurred with respect to this proceeding are hereby taxed against the respondent.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
ALDERMAN, J., dissents with an opinion.
ALDERMAN, Justice, dissenting.
In my view, disbarment, as recommended by the referee, is the appropriate discipline for Whitlock's misconduct.
Whitlock violated Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) by grossly neglecting the handling of a real estate closing and neglecting the proper handling of his trust account and making unauthorized withdrawals therefrom. He violated Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.02(4) and Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 9-102(A) by mishandling trust funds entrusted to him and not following procedures provided by Rule 11.02(4). He violated Florida Bar Integration Rule By-laws, article XI, section 5(b), (c), (d) by failing to make reconciliations of his trust account and completely failing to follow the basic requirements of trust account procedures and by commingling his trust funds with his general operating office funds. He violated Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 9-102(B)(3) by failing to maintain proper trust account records, by drawing against such trust account without proper explanation, and by not rendering appropriate accounts to his clients, particularly insofar as concerned several real estate closings. He violated Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) when he mishandled his trust account to such an extent that it adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. He violated Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(2) and 3-104(C) by permitting his secretary to manage and control his trust fund.
Penalties imposed against attorneys who violate the Code of Professional Responsibility should correspond to the seriousness of their offenses and should be severe enough to deter others who might be *958 tempted to engage in similar violations. In assessing the penalty for the misuse of clients' funds, in The Florida Bar v. Breed, 378 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1979), we said:
Applying these standards, I find that in the present case Whitlock should be disbarred.