## Facts

- The Florida Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against attorney William J. Neale after the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee “C” found probable cause on four separate complaints.
- A referee was appointed to hear the matters and make findings and recommendations to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The referee recommended dismissal of three complaints and, on the fourth complaint, recommended a finding of guilt for violating DR 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation) and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer).
- For the fourth complaint, the referee recommended discipline consisting of an 89-day suspension and a two-year conditional probation period.
- The Bar’s Board of Governors accepted the referee’s recommendation to dismiss the three complaints but rejected the recommended discipline on the fourth complaint, voting instead to seek a one-year suspension with proof of rehabilitation.
- The fourth complaint arose from Neale’s representation of Mrs. Mitchell in a personal-injury matter based on injuries she suffered from a dog bite in 1970.
- After settlement negotiations failed, Neale filed suit on Mitchell’s behalf in 1973.
- Only shortly before the scheduled trial date, Neale learned that the dog reportedly had a history of biting, a fact he believed could support a punitive-damages claim.
- Neale moved to amend the complaint to add punitive damages, but the trial court denied the amendment.
- Believing a four-year statute of limitations applied, Neale voluntarily dismissed (took a nonsuit) with Mitchell’s consent, intending to file a new action that included the punitive-damages theory.
- The applicable statute of limitations was three years, and the defendants successfully obtained judgment against Mitchell on limitations grounds in the refiled action; that outcome was later affirmed on appeal.
- The Bar argued that Neale’s late discovery of the dog’s propensity to bite and his statute-of-limitations mistake showed inadequate preparation and neglect warranting discipline under DR 6-101.
- Neale petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for review of the referee’s report.

## Issues

1. Whether Neale’s handling of the Mitchell dog-bite case—late discovery of a fact supporting punitive damages and an incorrect statute-of-limitations assessment leading to a voluntary dismissal and time-barred refiling—violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (inadequate preparation) and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect).
2. If a violation occurred, what discipline, if any, the Florida Supreme Court should impose.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction to review the referee’s report under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.
- The court rejected the referee’s conclusion that Neale violated DR 6-101(A)(2) and DR 6-101(A)(3) based on the Mitchell matter.
- The court characterized Neale’s conduct as an isolated instance of negligence and mistaken legal judgment, not misconduct serious enough to support a disciplinary conviction under Canon 6 and DR 6-101.
- The court dismissed the fourth complaint and declined to impose any sanction, rejecting both the referee’s recommended suspension/probation and the Board of Governors’ requested one-year suspension.

## Legal Principles

- Discipline under DR 6-101 requires neglect or lack of preparation of a degree that warrants a finding of professional misconduct; a single negligent mistake in a matter, even with severe client consequences, does not automatically establish a disciplinary violation.
- An attorney’s error in judgment, including an incorrect statute-of-limitations analysis, may amount to malpractice but is not necessarily sanctionable ethics misconduct without additional aggravating circumstances showing serious neglect.
- In Florida lawyer-discipline cases, the Florida Supreme Court independently reviews the record and is not bound by the referee’s legal conclusions regarding guilt or discipline.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that Neale’s late discovery of a fact suggesting punitive damages and his mistaken belief that a four-year statute of limitations applied—leading to a voluntary dismissal and a time-barred refiling—reflected negligence in a single representation but did not rise to the level of inadequate preparation or neglect required for discipline under DR 6-101; accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint and imposed no sanction.


Florida Bar v. Neale, 384 So. 2d 1264 (1980)