Title: The Florida Bar v. Ward
Citation: 472 So. 2d 1159
Docket Number: 64278
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: July 3, 1985

472 So. 2d 1159 (1985)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Fred J. WARD, Respondent.
No. 64278.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 3, 1985.
*1160 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Michael D. Powell and David M. Barnovitz, Bar Counsels, Fort Lauderdale, for complainant.
Richard R. Kirsch, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before the Court pursuant to our jurisdiction to discipline members of The Florida Bar. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Fla. Bar Integr. R., art. XI, Rule 11.09.
The referee made Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommended discipline as set forth below.
Respondent, Fred J. Ward, of Hallandale, Florida, disputes both the findings of guilt and the recommended sentence. We have reviewed the record of the hearing and find the referee's determination to be supported by competent and substantial evidence.
We would note that respondent's representation of himself and of his client, discussed in paragraph C of the referee's Recommendation as to Whether or Not Respondent Should Be Found Guilty, arises from circumstances not uncommon in the practice of law. Situations can and do arise in which attorney and client are jointly sued on matters growing out of the representation and, despite the fundamental conflict of interest inherent in such a case, the client insists that the attorney continue in representation as long as possible. The attorney in such instances is bound to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Fla. Bar Code Prof.Resp., Canon 9. It is therefore incumbent upon an attorney in these straits to document his full disclosure of the conflicts and the possible ramifications of his continued representation in the matter and the client's endorsement of both the disclosure and the representation. Only by such careful documentation can an attorney refute the charge of failure to fulfill the requirements of DR 5-101.
As to the propriety of the discipline, we find that it serves the Bar's goals of protecting the public, deterring others from similar misconduct, and punishing the wrongdoer.[*]
We approve the referee's report and recommendation. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for thirty days, effective thirty days from the date of this opinion, giving him an opportunity to take *1163 the necessary steps to close out his practice and protect his clients. Costs in the amount of $2,568.75 are taxed against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
[*]  We note in passing that, in the civil suit, respondent was found liable for $50,000 in punitive damages. Gold v. Wolkowitz, 430 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).