Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Jane Marie Letwin

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC09-2360

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-2360 
____________ 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR,  
Complainant, 
 
vs. 
 
JANE MARIE LETWIN, 
Respondent. 
 
[September 1, 2011] 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for review a referee's report recommending that Respondent, Jane 
Marie Letwin, be found guilty of professional misconduct and disciplined.  We 
have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  As more fully explained below, we 
approve the referee’s findings of fact and recommendation that Respondent be 
found guilty of violating Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.2 (violation of the 
rules of professional conduct is a cause for discipline), 4-7.4(a) (solicitation), and 
4-8.4(d) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with practice of law that 
is prejudicial to administration of justice).  However, we disapprove the referee’s 
recommendation that Respondent be found not guilty of violating rules 4-4.1 (in 
 
- 2 - 
course of representing client, lawyer shall not make false statement of material fact 
to third person), 4-8.4(a) (lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate rules of 
professional conduct), and 4-8.4(c) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and her recommendation that 
Respondent be suspended for ninety days.  Considering Respondent’s prior 
disciplinary history, the seriousness of the misconduct involved therein, and the 
seriousness of the misconduct proven in this matter, we conclude that a one-year 
suspension followed by three years of probation is the appropriate sanction.     
FACTS 
 
On December 23, 2009, the Bar filed a complaint against Respondent 
Letwin alleging that in August 2008, she sent an improper solicitation letter to 
numerous current and former part-time adult education teachers in Broward 
County, Florida.1  After a hearing, the assigned referee made the following 
findings of fact:   
 
1.  In or about August 2008, respondent sent a letter to 
numerous current and former part time adult education teachers in 
Broward County, Florida. The number of letters sent, according to the 
respondent’s own testimony, was over 900 letters to these individuals. 
 
2.  Each letter improperly solicited these part time teachers to 
join a purported class action suit against the Broward County School 
                                         
 
1.  The complaint originally contained two counts. The allegations described 
herein constituted count II.  Count I was voluntarily dismissed by the Bar because 
the aggrieved client is deceased.   
 
- 3 - 
Board. A copy of respondent’s August 28, 2008, correspondence to 
the over 900 prospective clients with attachment was attached to the 
complaint as Composite Exhibit B. 
 
3.  The letter contained inaccuracies and statements of fact that 
induced approximately 50 clients to retain respondent’s legal services. 
 
4.  First, the case referenced by respondent in the letter had not 
been certified as a class action by the trial court. 
 
5.  Respondent’s letter further did not identify it as an 
advertisement, as required by The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.   
 
6.  Further, the contract that respondent enclosed with the letter 
was not marked as a sample, as required by The Rules Regulating The 
Florida Bar. 
 
7.  The letter also stated that “I need to have your express 
acceptance of my legal representation or the COURT will not 
recognize your claim.” 
 
8.  Such statement was improper and not an accurate statement 
of law or fact. 
 
9.  Respondent failed to explain that the recipients of the letter 
were free to choose and hire any attorney to represent them in a 
lawsuit. 
        10.  Statements contained within her solicitation letter were both 
inaccurate and erroneous, and meant to induce prospective clients to 
hire her. 
        11.  Finally, respondent’s actions were clearly prejudicial to the 
proper administration of justice. 
 
Based on these findings of fact, the referee recommended that Respondent be 
found guilty of violating rules 3-4.2 (violation of the rules of professional conduct 
is a cause for discipline), 4-7.4(a) (solicitation), and 4-8.4(d) (lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct in connection with practice of law that is prejudicial to 
administration of justice), but not guilty of violating rules 4-4.1 (in course of 
representing client, lawyer shall not make false statement of material fact to third 
person), 4-8.4(a) (lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate rules of professional 
 
- 4 - 
conduct), and 4-8.4(c) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).   
The referee recommended that Respondent be suspended for ninety days and 
attend an “education workshop dealing with Solicitations/Advertisements, if 
available or obtain written materials on the topic.”  In recommending this sanction, 
the referee noted the following aggravating factors:  (1) prior disciplinary offenses, 
(2) pattern of misconduct, and (3) multiple offenses.  The referee also found and 
considered three mitigating factors:  (1) personal or emotional problems (illness 
and subsequent death of Respondent’s spouse); (2) absence of selfish or dishonest 
motive; and (3) interim rehabilitation.   
 
The Bar seeks review of the referee’s recommendation that Respondent be 
found not guilty of violating rules 4-4.1 (in course of representing client, lawyer 
shall not make false statement of material fact to third person), 4-8.4(a) (lawyer 
shall not violate or attempt to violate rules of professional conduct), and 4-8.4(c) 
(lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation) and the referee’s recommendation of a ninety-day suspension.  
Respondent has filed a cross-petition for review challenging the referee’s 
recommendations as to guilt and discipline.   
 
ANALYSIS 
 
- 5 - 
Both parties challenge the referee’s recommendations as to guilt.2  First, the 
Bar challenges the referee’s recommendation that Respondent be found not guilty 
of violating rules 4-4.1, 4-8.4(a), and 4-8.4(c) as charged in the complaint.   
The Bar’s arguments in this regard are well taken.  Rule 4-4.1 states, in 
pertinent part, that “[i]n the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not 
knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.”  Rule 
4-8.4(c) states, in pertinent part, that a lawyer shall not “engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”  The referee found that 
the letter Respondent sent “contained inaccuracies and statements of fact that 
induced approximately 50 clients to retain respondent’s legal services,” and that 
statements contained in the letter were “both inaccurate and erroneous, and meant 
to induce prospective clients to hire her.”  Specifically, the referee found that the 
case referenced by Respondent as a “class action” had not yet been certified as a 
class action in the trial court, and that her statement in the letter that “I need to 
have your express acceptance of my legal representation or the COURT will not 
recognize your claim” was “improper and not an accurate statement of law or 
fact.”  These factual findings are in direct contravention to the recommendations 
that Respondent be found not guilty of violating rules 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c).  
                                         
 
2.  Neither party specifically challenges the referee’s findings of fact; 
accordingly, they are approved without further discussion. 
 
- 6 - 
Accordingly, the referee’s recommendation in this regard is disapproved, and we 
conclude that Respondent is guilty of violating rules 4-1.4 and 4-8.4(c).   
We also disapprove the referee’s recommendation that Respondent be found 
not guilty of violating rule 4-8.4(a).  That rule states that a lawyer shall not “violate 
or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce 
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.”  Thus, by its plain language, 
that rule is necessarily violated whenever any other rule of professional conduct is 
violated.  Because the referee recommended that Respondent be found guilty of 
violating other rules, she should have recommended Respondent be found guilty of 
violating rule 4-8.4(a).3 
Respondent challenges the referee’s recommendation that she be found 
guilty of violating rule 4-7.4(a) (solicitation).4  In pertinent part, this rule provides 
that, except as set forth in subdivision (b) of the rule (setting out the parameters of 
permissible written communications with prospective clients), “a lawyer shall not 
                                         
 
3.  The referee’s recommendations that Respondent be found guilty of 
violating rules 3-4.2 (violation of the rules of professional conduct is a cause for 
discipline) and 4-8.4(d) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with 
practice of law that is prejudicial to administration of justice) are also approved. 
 
4.  In her answer/initial brief on cross-petition for review, Respondent does 
not make arguments specific to any particular recommendation of guilt by the 
referee, but rather generally contends that the referee should not have found that 
she engaged in “improper solicitation.”  Thus, we interpret this argument to be a 
challenge to the referee’s recommendation that she violated rule 4-7.4(a).    
 
- 7 - 
solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer 
has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a 
significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain.”  The 
rule also provides that a lawyer “shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or 
collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule,” and 
that the term “solicit” includes “any written form of communication directed to a 
specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule.”  
R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-7.4(a).  Subdivision (b) prohibits unsolicited written 
communications with prospective clients if, among other things, the 
communication “contains a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement or 
claim.”  Subdivision (b) also sets forth certain requirements for such written 
communications, such as they must be marked in red ink as “advertisements,” they 
must be sent only by regular U.S. mail, they must be accompanied by a written 
statement of the lawyer’s background, training, and experience, and if a contract 
for representation is included, the contract must be marked as a “sample” and the 
words “do not sign” must appear on the client signature line.  R. Regulating Fla. 
Bar 4-7.4(b).  Here, the referee found, and Respondent does not dispute, that she 
sent a written communication to prospective clients for the purpose of obtaining 
professional employment that did not meet the requirements of rule 4-7.4.  
Although Respondent contends that she already viewed the recipients of the letter 
 
- 8 - 
as her “clients” and that because of the multiple lawsuits she had filed, there was a 
“budding attorney-client relationship” between her and the putative class members, 
nothing in the record showed that a true attorney-client relationship had been 
established.  Accordingly, we approve the referee’s recommendation that 
Respondent be found guilty of violating rule 4-7.4(a).               
Next, both parties have challenged the referee’s recommended discipline of 
a ninety-day suspension.  The Bar contends that at least a ninety-one-day 
suspension is warranted, mainly due to Respondent’s prior misconduct and prior 
discipline.  Respondent argues that only a public reprimand is warranted. 
 In reviewing a referee's recommended discipline, this Court's scope of 
review is broader than that afforded to the referee's findings of fact because, 
ultimately, it is our responsibility to order the appropriate sanction.  See Fla. Bar v. 
Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1989); see also art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  
However, generally speaking this Court will not second-guess the referee's 
recommended discipline as long as it has a reasonable basis in existing case law 
and the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.  See Fla. Bar v. 
Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555, 558 (Fla. 1999).  
In cases involving unethical solicitation of clients, we have imposed a wide 
variety of disciplinary measures.  See Fla. Bar v. Barrett, 897 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 
2005) (noting wide variety of discipline depending on the specific facts of each 
 
- 9 - 
case; citing cases ranging from public reprimand to disbarment).  Citing our 
decision in Barrett,5 the referee in this case correctly concluded that a suspension is 
appropriate in such cases “when respondent’s actions are knowing, intentional and 
potentially injurious to a client, the public or the legal system as a whole.”  Further, 
the referee correctly noted that a suspension in this case is supported by standards 
7.2 (suspension is appropriate when lawyer knowingly engages in conduct in 
violation of duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to 
client, public, or legal system) and 8.0 (suspension is appropriate when lawyer has 
been publicly reprimanded for same or similar conduct and engages in further 
similar misconduct that causes injury or potential injury to client, public, legal 
system, or profession).   
Although we agree with the referee that a suspension is warranted in this 
case, we disagree that a ninety-day suspension is sufficient, given Respondent’s 
disciplinary history6 and continuing pattern of misconduct. 
                                         
 
5.  Specifically, in Barrett, the Court stated that in unethical solicitation 
cases, the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline “authorize either disbarment 
or suspension . . . depending on the amount of harm or potential harm caused and 
on whether the conduct was intentional versus knowing.”  Barrett, 897 So. 2d at 
1276.   
 
6.  In 1995, Respondent received a public reprimand for misrepresentation, 
Florida Bar v. Letwin, 652 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1995), and in 2009, she received a 
ninety-day suspension with three years’ probation (including monitoring by a 
 
- 10 - 
In 2009, Respondent was found guilty of four separate counts of serious and 
intentional misconduct.  In count I, she was found guilty of failing to respond to a 
request for production and interrogatories propounded to her client, intentionally 
failing to appear at a hearing on attorneys’ fees that had been awarded against her 
client, failing to answer calls from the court inquiring into her whereabouts during 
the hearing, and knowingly failing to comply with terms of a six-month probation 
sentence (and order that she pay the entire amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to 
the opposing party) imposed upon her as a result of being held in indirect criminal 
contempt of court.  In count II, she was found guilty of refusing to produce her 
client for a deposition, resulting in an order for sanctions against her and her client 
(and ordering her to pay $3100) for her intentional interference with the opposing 
parties’ discovery attempts.  In count III, she was found guilty of failing to execute 
on a default judgment that had been entered in favor of her client, resulting in 
dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and failing to properly communicate 
with and inform her client with regard to the case.  Finally, as found in count IV, a 
federal judge ordered that she pay $5,802.25 in attorneys’ fees as a sanction.  She 
failed to make any payment on such sanction, was held in contempt and again 
ordered to pay the sanction, improperly appealed the sanction to the U.S. Court of 
                                                                                                                                   
supervising attorney) for contempt, neglect, and misrepresentation, Florida Bar v. 
Letwin, 14 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2009).    
 
- 11 - 
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, again failed to pay the sanction, and was again 
held in contempt. The federal magistrate in that case found that Respondent 
“contemptuously defied” the court’s order and further stated that Respondent 
practiced law “in a manner that unreasonably burdens the judiciary and harms 
other parties by causing them to needlessly expend time and effort and incur legal 
fees.  Her repeated poor judgment and unprofessional conduct puts at risk the 
legitimate interests of her clients.”  Aldavero v. St. Louis, No. 05-22098 (S.D. Fla. 
filed Mar. 19, 2007) (Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 
Judge).  The magistrate also recommended that Respondent’s actions be referred to 
The Florida Bar as well as the Southern District Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney 
Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance.  Id.7     
As a result of these instances of misconduct, the referee in the prior 
disciplinary case recommended that Respondent be found guilty of violating 
multiple rules and be suspended for ninety days followed by a three-year period of 
probation with a supervising attorney providing “continuous monitoring” of her 
clients’ case files and providing quarterly reports to the Bar.  The referee also 
recommended that she be required to pay $1600 in restitution to one of the injured 
                                         
 
7.  The magistrate’s March 19, 2007, order was affirmed by United States 
District Judge Patricia Seitz.  Aldavero v. St. Louis, No. 05-22098 (S.D. Fla. filed 
Aug. 2, 2007) (Order Affirming Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 
Judge).   
 
- 12 - 
clients.  In making this disciplinary recommendation, the referee noted, in 
mitigation, that during the period in which the misconduct took place, 
Respondent’s husband became very ill and subsequently died.  The referee’s 
uncontested report and recommendation was approved by the Court on July 9, 
2009.  Fla. Bar v. Letwin, 14 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2009).    
Given the seriousness of this prior misconduct and Respondent’s continuing 
pattern of misconduct as proven here,8 we conclude that a one-year suspension is 
warranted in this case.  We have previously imposed rehabilitative suspensions in 
unethical solicitation cases.  See Fla. Bar v. Wolfe, 759 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2000) 
(imposing one-year suspension followed by three years’ probation where attorney 
engaged in in-person solicitation of clients in areas damaged by tornado, offering 
legal services and presenting individuals with pamphlets and prepared contingency 
fee contracts that did not comply with rules); Fla. Bar v. Stafford, 542 So. 2d 1321 
(Fla. 1989) (imposing six-month suspension where attorney engaged in 
arrangement for solicitation of clients with police officer); Fla. Bar v. Curry, 211 
So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1968) (imposing six-month suspension where attorney, who was 
also an accountant, mailed out approximately 800 letters to individuals for whom 
                                         
 
8. The misconduct in the case discussed above occurred from 2005 through 
2007.  The Bar’s complaint in that case was filed in June of 2008.  As noted, the 
letter at issue in the instant case was sent in August 2008.  
 
- 13 - 
he had previously prepared income tax returns soliciting those individuals as legal 
clients). The over 900 letters sent by Respondent clearly fell under the restrictions 
of rule 4-7.4 and clearly violated that rule.  Although the illness and subsequent 
death of Respondent’s spouse shortly before the letter was sent does constitute 
significant mitigation, given the clear violation and the seriousness of 
Respondent’s prior misconduct, we conclude that under the specific circumstances 
of this case, the referee’s recommendation is inadequate, and a one-year 
rehabilitative suspension, followed by three years of probation and attendance at 
The Florida Bar’s Advertising Workshop, is required.   
Accordingly, Respondent, Jane Marie Letwin, is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for one year.  The suspension will be effective thirty days from the 
filing of this opinion so that Respondent can close out her practice and protect the 
interests of existing clients.  If Respondent notifies this Court in writing that she is 
no longer practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, 
this Court will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately.  
Respondent shall fully comply with Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-5.1(g).  
Further, Respondent shall accept no new business from the date this opinion is 
filed until she is reinstated.  As a condition of reinstatement, Respondent shall be 
required to attend The Florida Bar’s Advertising Workshop.  Upon reinstatement, 
Respondent shall be further placed on probation for three years.  
 
- 14 - 
 
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Jane Marie Letwin in 
the amount of $2,026.75, for which sum let execution issue. 
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
CANADY, C.J., concurs in result. 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUSPENSION. 
 
 
Original Proceeding – The Florida Bar 
 
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Staff 
Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, and Alan Anthony Pascal, Bar 
Counsel, The Florida Bar, Sunrise, Florida, 
 
 
for Complainant 
 
Jane M. Letwin, Pro se, Coral Gables, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent