HomeMy WebLinkAbout0114 {
Should the caae be dismiesed now, the statute of
limitations appears to have run and Plaintiffs may be barred r
~
f
forever. .
;
. This Court has had personal experience with the lawyer in ;
question, although not in this case nor in recent years. Similar
reluctance to actually go to trial led to his discharge in a prior
~
case and eventually to the dissolution of a previous law partnership.
If there is any lack of due diligence in this case that is .
worthy of censure it may be on the part of the ~udiciary and the
bar who did not pick up on this attorney's~problems in time to ~
protect his clients from the danger of having their claims go
unlitigated. After all, it is the obligation of the Courts and
the organized bar to protect the public from lawyers who are unfit
to practice, whether from moral fault or from innocent physical or
mental illness.
Under all the circumstances of this case Plaintiffs have
shown good cause why there should be no dismissal. Accordingly,
the Motion to Dismiss is denied. ~
DONE and ORDERED at Stuart, Martin C~unty, Florida, this
day of October, 1978.
- ~ ~ ~
.
_ , ~ _
' GHIEF JUDGE
; Copies furnished.
s
S ~
; N1~ontgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney and Searcy
s ~
4
! Jones, Paine and Foster,_ P. A.
~ NoY i II al ~M'18
F ~
i
!
i F1! EO ~1MD PfC0~i0E0 r
ST.l1iC1E COUN7r.f~A.
~ NOGER ?Ot.'R~S
`s C~ERIt CMCUIT COUR
; RECOAD VEBIFIED _~D~
~
C
~
r
~
r`
9 }
~g •
7
r s~~7 ~ 11~4
~
i
i
s
~ 3
_ . " ' r "
i ~
. K`y'?~`s,_. . _ . . . ~ v. ~