Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementattorneylawyersubpoenatrustcompliance
attorneylawyertrustworkers' compensation

Related Cases

In re Dresser Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 1992-2 Trade Cases P 69,952
View Case »
Kronberg v. LaRouche, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 1443934
View Case »
Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 333 Wis.2d 402, 2011 WI 36, 797 N.W.2d 789
View Case »
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 112 Fed.Cl. 274
View Case »
Picker Intern., Inc. v. Varian Associates, Inc., 869 F.2d 578, 57 USLW 2578, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1122
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

The Florida Bar v. Spann, 682 So.2d 1070, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S330

Facts

Ronald T. Spann represented several clients between 1988 and 1993, during which he committed numerous ethical violations. He improperly withdrew funds from a client's trust account without court approval, forged a client's signature on settlement documents, and failed to return client funds. Additionally, Spann allowed nonlawyer employees to engage in unauthorized legal practices and failed to comply with a grievance committee subpoena. His actions were found to violate multiple provisions of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

The record reflects that, in 1988, Ronald Spann represented Steven Amburgey in a workers' compensation case. Their retainer agreement authorized Spann to hold some of Amburgey's compensation benefits in trust and use it as a fund for compensation so long as the court approved all attorney's fees and costs. In November 1988, Spann withdrew over $1,000 in attorney's fees and over $100 in costs, but did not file an order with the court requesting approval of these disbursements until the following month. From February through June, 1989, Spann additionally withdrew approximately $400 in fees without court approval.

Issue

Did Ronald T. Spann's actions constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment due to multiple ethical violations?

Did Ronald T. Spann's actions constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment due to multiple ethical violations?

Rule

The court applied the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which prohibit attorneys from engaging in dishonest conduct, failing to supervise nonlawyer employees, and charging excessive fees.

The court applied the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which prohibit attorneys from engaging in dishonest conduct, failing to supervise nonlawyer employees, and charging excessive fees.

Analysis

The court found that Spann's actions, including the authorization of a forged signature and the failure to disclose material facts to the court, constituted serious misconduct. The referee's findings of fact were supported by evidence, and Spann's pattern of unethical behavior over several years demonstrated a disregard for professional conduct. The court emphasized that disbarment was appropriate given the severity and cumulative nature of his violations.

The court found that Spann's actions, including the authorization of a forged signature and the failure to disclose material facts to the court, constituted serious misconduct. The referee's findings of fact were supported by evidence, and Spann's pattern of unethical behavior over several years demonstrated a disregard for professional conduct. The court emphasized that disbarment was appropriate given the severity and cumulative nature of his violations.

Conclusion

The court ordered Ronald T. Spann to be disbarred for a period of five years, effective thirty days from the filing of the opinion, and required him to demonstrate compliance with the rules before any petition for readmission could be granted.

Disbarment ordered.

Who won?

The Florida Bar prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the referee's findings and recommended disbarment due to Spann's numerous ethical violations.

The Florida Bar prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the referee's findings and recommended disbarment due to Spann's numerous ethical violations.

You must be