TALLAHASSEE (Florida Record) — Longtime Stuart attorney Glenn John Webber faces suspension following a Sept. 13 Florida Supreme Court order over allegations he failed to properly supervise his staff, according to a recent announcement by The Florida Bar.
That alleged failure lead to multiple problems in Webber's practice, according to the state bar's Sept. 28 announcement of the discipline and the Supreme Court's order.
"Webber's failure to adequately train and supervise his staff resulted in the premature transfer of fees to Webber, the payment of costs from his trust account before client funds were deposited in the trust account and the failure to maintain trust books and records that were in substantial compliance with the rules," the announcement said. "Shortages of a brief duration resulted from the bookkeeper's actions."
In its two-page order, the state Supreme Court approved the uncontested referee's report filed in the matter before suspending Webber for 60 days, with automatic reinstatement, followed by two years of conditional probation. The high court also ordered Webber to pay about $8,034 in costs.
Webber's suspension will be effective 30 days from the date of the court's order to allow him time to close his practice and protect his existing clients' interests, according to the high court's order.
Florida court orders are not final until time to file a rehearing motion expires. Filing such a motion does not alter the effective date of Webber's suspension.
Webber was admitted to the bar in Florida on Oct. 28, 1982, according to his profile at the state bar website. No prior discipline before the state bar is listed on Webber's state bar profile.
The absence of a disciplinary history was considered a mitigating factor in the matter against Webber, according to the consent judgment filed with the court. The judgment also includes Webber's conditional guilty plea.
Other mitigating factors included no dishonest or selfish motive, that Webber made timely and good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of his misconduct and that he fully cooperated with the state bar's investigation, according to the consent judgment.