Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): she had responded, the disciplinary hearing which was held might have proven to be unnecessary. Spooner, No. SC04-1375, Florida Bar No. 2004-00,357 The referee made numerous findings concerning the Spooner case, all of which led to the conclusion that Broome’s representation of Spooner was adequate. The only ethical violation the referee found in this case, a failure to respond to the Bar’s letter of inquiry in violation of rule 4-8.4(g)(1), was not supported by a factual finding by the referee that Broome failed to respond to a letter of inquiry from the Bar. However, Broome admitted the allegation in her answer to the Bar’s formal complaint against her. Nor is she taking issue with the referee’s finding of the violation. See also Fla. Bar v. Lancaster, 448 So.2d 1019, 1022 (Fla.1984) (<HOLDING>). Mailloux, No. SC04-1375, Florida Bar No. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendants were precluded from challenging the validity of jury verdict forms for failure to have complained at trial (B) holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal (C) holding that a defendants failure to object or join in a codefendants objection to an issue bars the defendant from raising the issue on appeal (D) holding bars failure to present evidence on an issue to which the parties had stipulated precluded the attorney from challenging the accuracy of the finding (E) holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court
Output (English): holding defendants were precluded from challenging the validity of jury verdict forms for failure to have complained at trial