Florida Bar v. Black
17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 542, 602 So. 2d 1298, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1295 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's personal financial transactions with a client constitute a breach of fiduciary duty if the client is not fully protected by safeguards such as receiving security for a loan and being advised to seek independent legal counsel, regardless of whether the client ultimately suffers a financial loss.
Facts:
- Attorney Martin L. Black was in difficult personal circumstances and needed an emergency loan.
- Black borrowed funds from one of his clients.
- Black did not provide any security or collateral for the loan, leaving the client unsecured.
- Black failed to advise the client of their right to seek separate, independent legal representation for the transaction.
- Black promised to pay the client a usurious (illegally high) rate of interest.
- Black never informed the client that the interest rate for the transaction was illegal.
- Black also used the client in an effort to obtain a separate personal loan for himself.
- The client was ultimately repaid in full and suffered no financial loss.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Bar brought a disciplinary action against attorney Martin L. Black.
- Following proceedings, a referee issued a report finding that Black had violated several Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
- The referee recommended that Black be suspended for ninety-one days and be required to pass the ethics portion of the bar examination.
- The Supreme Court of Florida then reviewed the referee’s report and recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney violate their professional and fiduciary duties by borrowing money from a client without providing security, failing to advise the client to seek independent counsel, and promising a usurious rate of interest?
Opinions:
Majority - McDonald, justice
Yes. An attorney violates their professional duties by entering into such a transaction with a client. Lawyers act in a special fiduciary capacity and must avoid using the attorney-client relationship for personal gain. Here, Black took advantage of an unsophisticated client for an emergency loan when he could not obtain funds elsewhere. Although the client suffered no ultimate loss, the client was exposed to potential damage, which constitutes a clear violation of the rules of professional conduct. While the court noted extensive mitigating factors, such as Black's remorse, cooperation, and eventual repayment, these factors serve to lessen the punishment but do not excuse the underlying misconduct.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict prohibition against attorneys engaging in personal business transactions with clients without implementing extensive safeguards. It clarifies that the ethical breach occurs when the attorney creates a risk of harm by exploiting the fiduciary relationship, not merely when actual financial harm materializes. The court's decision demonstrates that even with significant mitigating factors like full restitution and remorse, discipline is still warranted to protect the public and the integrity of the profession. This serves as a strong deterrent for attorneys considering co-mingling their personal financial needs with their professional relationships.
