Skip to main content

The Florida Bar v. Brown

Citations

  • 905 So. 2d 76
  • 2005 WL 1355026

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting argument that lawyer lacked intent to misrepresent the status of a certificate of deposit in an agreement because he did not read the agreement
  • “[T]he unique role of attorneys as officers of the court mandates that attorneys be held to the highest of ethical standards.” (quoting DeBock v. State, 512 So. 2d 164, 168 (Fla. 1987))
  • the respondent was found guilty of violating rule 4-8.4(c), after claiming that he did not have the necessary intent because he allegedly did not read the business agreement pledging a $420,000 certificate of deposit as security before he executed the agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named The Florida Bar v. Brown

6 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.