Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
The Florida Bar v. Neale
Citations: 384 So. 2d 1264; 1980 Fla. LEXIS 4275Docket: 57732
Court: Supreme Court of Florida; June 5, 1980; Florida; State Supreme Court
William J. Neale, a member of The Florida Bar, sought review of a referee's recommendation in a bar grievance case. The Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "C" found probable cause for four complaints against Neale, with the referee siding with him on three but recommending a finding of guilt on one. This involved his representation of a client, Mrs. Mitchell, in a dog bite injury claim. Neale filed suit in 1973, but after discovering the dog had a history of biting shortly before trial, he attempted to amend the complaint to include punitive damages, which was denied. Believing a four-year statute of limitations applied, he voluntarily dismissed the suit with his client's agreement, overlooking the three-year limit for strict liability cases. The defendants successfully invoked this defense in the subsequent suit, leading to a judgment against Mitchell, which was upheld on appeal. The referee criticized Neale for inadequate preparation and failing to investigate his client's case thoroughly, which contributed to his misunderstanding of the statute of limitations. However, the Supreme Court of Florida found that Neale's conduct, while negligent, did not rise to an ethical violation under Canon 6. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions should not substitute for malpractice claims, and the power to disbar or suspend should be exercised cautiously. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the charges against Neale, rejecting both the referee's and the bar's recommendations for discipline.