From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

The Florida Bar v. Gunther

Supreme Court of Florida
Nov 26, 1980
390 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1980)

Summary

approving uncontested referee's report recommending a one-year suspension where attorney failed to notify client of granting of corporate charter, failed to have shares of stock issued, failed to have client named as president, and failed to deliver certified articles of incorporation to client

Summary of this case from Florida Bar v. Arango

Opinion

No. 58295.

November 26, 1980.

John S. McEwan, II, Chairman of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "A", Orlando, David G. McGunegle, Bar Counsel and Branch Staff Counsel, Orlando, and John A. Boggs, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.

No appearance for respondent.


This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against Ronald S. Gunther, a member of The Florida Bar, is presently before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and Report of Referee. Pursuant to Rule 11.06(9)(b) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the referee's report and record were duly filed with this court. No petition for review pursuant to Rule 11.09(1), Integration Rule, has been filed.

Having considered the pleadings and evidence, the referee found as follows:

"1. On March 9, 1979, Respondent accepted the sum of $100.00 as a fee to form a corporation for his client, Gregory L. McDuffie, plus an additional $118.00 presumably to cover filing fees and other incidental costs. . . .

2. Articles of Incorporation were prepared by Respondent and filed by him with the Secretary of State on July 13, 1979, which Articles named Respondent as sole director and the sole incorporator. . . .

3. Respondent failed to notify his client of the granting of said Charter by the Secretary of State and failed to accept or return any of his client's telephone calls. . . .

4. Respondent failed to have issued 750 shares of $10.00 par stock as agreed to in the Basic Client Information Sheet. . . .

5. Respondent failed to have his client named as President as agreed to in the Basic Client Information Sheet. . . .

6. Respondent failed to deliver the certified Articles of Incorporation to his client. . . ."

The referee recommends that respondent be found not guilty of violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4), 3-104(C), 7-101(A)(2) and 9-102(A) of The Florida Bar's Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rules of The Florida Bar and that he be found guilty of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) and recommends that respondent be suspended for a fixed period of one year, thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation, and pay the cost of this proceeding, as provided in Rule 11.10(4).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.

Accordingly, respondent, Ronald S. Gunther, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of one year, thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation.

Execution is hereby directed to issue against respondent for costs in the amount of $188.63.

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.


Summaries of

The Florida Bar v. Gunther

Supreme Court of Florida
Nov 26, 1980
390 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1980)

approving uncontested referee's report recommending a one-year suspension where attorney failed to notify client of granting of corporate charter, failed to have shares of stock issued, failed to have client named as president, and failed to deliver certified articles of incorporation to client

Summary of this case from Florida Bar v. Arango
Case details for

The Florida Bar v. Gunther

Case Details

Full title:THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT, v. RONALD S. GUNTHER, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Nov 26, 1980

Citations

390 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1980)

Citing Cases

Florida Bar v. Jordan

After reviewing the record, we find that neither of these issues warrants discussion.Florida Bar v. Fussell,…

Florida Bar v. Arango

ch a disciplinary sanction are distinguishable from the present case. For example, many of the cases cited by…