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

negligencefiduciarycompliancefiduciary dutybreach of fiduciary duty
lawyercompliancerespondentrestitution

Related Cases

George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 1979-NMCA-028
View Case »
Board of Overseers of Bar v. Warren, 34 A.3d 1103, 2011 ME 124
View Case »
In re Diggs, 344 S.C. 397, 544 S.E.2d 628, 96 A.L.R.5th 599
View Case »
Poly Trucking, Inc. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 93 P.3d 561
View Case »
Trainum v. Sutherland Associates, LLC, 263 Neb. 778, 642 N.W.2d 816
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

The Florida Bar in re Inglis, 471 So.2d 38, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 333

Facts

Charles K. Inglis was suspended from practicing law for eighteen months in 1964 due to prior misconduct. After his suspension, he attempted to reinstate but withdrew his petition due to failure to meet the conditions set by the court. The current petition for reinstatement was based on a referee's report, which found that while Inglis had shown repentance and complied with previous orders, he had not sufficiently demonstrated professional ability. The referee also noted concerns regarding Inglis's moral character based on a real estate transaction and a past criminal conviction for culpable negligence.

In 1964 this Court suspended Inglis from the practice of law for a term of eighteen months. Several years later, respondent filed a petition for reinstatement but the petition was withdrawn, apparently because of inability to establish satisfaction of conditions and entitlement to reinstatement.

Issue

Did Charles K. Inglis meet the criteria for reinstatement to the practice of law, specifically regarding his moral character, fitness, and professional ability?

Did Charles K. Inglis meet the criteria for reinstatement to the practice of law, specifically regarding his moral character, fitness, and professional ability?

Rule

The criteria for reinstatement to active membership in the Bar include strict compliance with previous disciplinary orders, good moral character, demonstrable professional ability, and compliance with any imposed conditions.

The criteria for reinstatement to active membership in the Bar include: (1) strict compliance with the previous disciplinary order; (2) good moral character; (3) demonstrable professional ability; (4) lack of malice toward those involved in bringing about the previous disciplinary proceedings; (5) a strong sense of repentance for the prior misconduct and a genuine intention of proper conduct in the future; and (6) compliance with any conditions imposed such as restitution.

Analysis

The court reviewed the referee's findings and concluded that Inglis had demonstrated good moral character and fitness for reinstatement. The court disagreed with the referee's assessment of Inglis's real estate transaction, determining that it did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, the court found that the conviction for culpable negligence did not reflect moral turpitude and that Inglis's long period of good conduct outweighed past incidents.

Having examined the petition for review, the briefs of the parties, and the evidence in the record, we find that the referee erred in his findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation. We find that petitioner has demonstrated that he is entitled to reinstatement as far as the moral character and fitness component of the criteria is concerned.

Conclusion

The court granted Inglis's petition for reinstatement concerning character and fitness but required him to pass the Florida bar examination to establish his professional ability.

The recommendation of the referee is disapproved. The petition for reinstatement is granted as to the criteria relating to conduct, character, and fitness.

Who won?

Charles K. Inglis prevailed in the case as the court found he met the character-and-fitness criteria for reinstatement, although he must still pass the bar exam.

The Referee notes that in recent years the Bar and the Court have been increasingly forgiving of transgressions of lawyers and, from time to time, have readmitted to the practice lawyers who have been found guilty of far more serious offenses than those which caused the suspension of Mr. Inglis.

You must be