Opinion
July 29, 1952.
John T. Wigginton, Tallahassee, Chairman, J. Velma Keen, Tallahassee, Robert J. Pleus, Orlando, E. Dixie Beggs, Pensacola, Richard H. Hunt, Miami, E. Harris Drew, West Palm Beach, Jas. D. Bruton, Jr., Plant City, and Giles J. Patterson, Jacksonville, Members of Supreme Court Committee of Florida Bar, for complainant.
Oxford Oxford, Lakeland, for respondent.
This cause is before us upon the record, findings, and recommendations of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar with reference to the professional misconduct of Manuel M. Glover. See Art. XI, Integration Rule, 31 F.S.A.
The Hon. William H. Dial, duly appointed by this Court as referee to conduct the hearing of the complaint against the respondent, performed his duties in that respect and submitted to the Board the testimony taken, his finding that the respondent had been proved guilty of the professional misconduct charged, and his recommendation that the respondent "be suspended as a practicing attorney for a minimum period of three (3) years."
The Board of Governors approved the findings of fact and adopted them as the findings of the Board. The Board did not, however, subscribe to the penalty proposed, but recommended to this Court that the respondent be disbarred, instead of suspended.
Respondent, in presenting his petition for review, poses two questions: 1) the justification for the suspension for a period of three years, and 2) the authority of the Board of Governors to increase the penalty to disbarment.
Our study of the record leads us to concurrence in the conclusions of the referee and the Board that the respondent so conducted himself as to deserve severe punishment.
Our view also is that the Board was fully authorized to recommend the substitution of the penalty of disbarment for suspension. The rule on the subject is quite clear. The referee is charged with determining the fact of misconduct, but his idea of the appropriate punishment is but a recommendation, as indeed is the Board's thought on that feature of the proceedings. Under the rule the responsibility and power ultimately to fix the penalty to be imposed are lodged in this Court.
Basing our judgment on the content of the record and the meaning of the rule, we hold that the penalty recommended by the Board was not only justified, but authorized; so we confirm the report, accept the recommendation, and order that the respondent be and he is hereby, disbarred.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, HOBSON, ROBERTS and MATHEWS, JJ., and HOCKER, Associate Justice, concur.