
    THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Ralph L. ROUSSEAU, Jr., Respondent.
    No. 37654.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 5, 1969.
    
      W. Crosby Few, Tampa, for The Florida Bar, Complainant.
    Joseph A. McClain, Jr., Thomas A. Clark and Thomas J. Hanlon, Tampa, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition of Ralph L. Rousseau, Jr., respondent, to review the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar that he be suspended from the practice of law for a time certain of six months and that he pay the costs of these proceedings.

The judgment of the Board of Governors entered July 19, 1968 recites the findings of the appointed referee as follows:

"The respondent was charged with having failed to file income tax returns during the years 1963, 1964 and 1965. The Complaint further charged and the referee found that the United States of America charged the respondent with the crime of failure to file tax returns and he was convicted in the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 29, 1968 and sentenced to serve one year and one day in prison. The referee found the respondent guilty of- violation of the Integration Rule, Article XI, Rule 11.02(3), Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rules 30 and 32 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida. He recommended that respondent be privately reprimanded and placed on probation for two years.”

We have heard argument of parties and considered the briefs and the record and the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. There are mitigating circumstances reflected by the record. It is, therefore, the conclusion of this Court that the judgment of suspension be not approved. In lieu thereof, the recommendation of the referee that respondent receive a private reprimand and be placed on probation for two years is approved.

Accordingly, it is the order of this Court that respondent, Ralph L. Rousseau, Jr., be administered a private reprimand, placed on probation for two years and pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $212.40.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

DREW, J., dissents with opinion.

DREW, Justice

(dissenting).

The lawyer here wilfully and deliberately failed to file income tax returns for 3 successive years. Such clear violation of the law resulted in his conviction and sentence to a term in a Federal Prison. His voluntary confession of such dereliction before it was discovered by the authorities and his plea of guilty was asuredly most commendable. Before he was paroled from prison, however, he knew that the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar had — contrary to the referee’s recommendation of a two-year probation — entered its judgment suspending him for a period of six months. Nevertheless [while still under parole], he re-entered the practice of law and has practiced since said time. Good faith it seems to me, would have required the lawyer to refrain from practice pending the disposition of his petition here to review the Board of Governors judgment, even though such, under our decisions, is only a recommendation.

I would accept the recommendation of the Board of Governors and enter judgment accordingly.  