Summary
imposing public reprimand for lying during discovery
Summary of this case from Florida Bar v. CorbinOpinion
No. 69731.
February 25, 1988.
Original Proceeding — The Florida Bar.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and David G. McGunegle and John B. Root, Jr., Bar Counsel, Orlando, for complainant.
John L. Sewell of Gurney Handley, P.A., Orlando, for respondent.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court upon the complaint of The Florida Bar, the respondent's guilty plea for consent judgment, and the referee's report.
The Bar's complaint set forth the charge that, during a marriage dissolution proceeding to which the respondent, Donald F. Wright, was a party, he was asked, through the discovery process, to reveal any real property sale contracts in which he had an interest. There were two such contracts that he did not divulge in response to requests for discovery. In his guilty plea respondent admits that the contracts were subject to discovery and should have been provided. He admits that his conduct violated the former Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law).
The Florida Bar asked the referee to accept respondent's guilty plea and to recommend imposition of the disciplinary measure agreed to therein. The referee accepted the consent judgment and made recommendations accordingly. The consent judgment noted the emotional strain of the contested dissolution proceeding as a mitigating factor.
The referee recommends, in accordance with the consent judgment agreed to by The Florida Bar, that respondent be given a public reprimand. We approve the referee's report and hereby reprimand attorney Donald F. Wright for professional misconduct.
The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the respondent. Judgment for costs is entered against Donald F. Wright in the amount of $1,113.95, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.