Title: The Florida Bar v. Gary Elvin Doane

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010 
 
 
CASE NO.:  SC08-1278 
 
Lower Tribunal No.:  2008-90,049(02S) 
 
 
 
 
     2008-90,094(02S) 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR 
vs. GARY ELVIN DOANE 
Complainant(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
Upon consideration of the report of the referee and the briefs in this case, the 
referee's findings of fact and recommendations of guilt are approved. The referee's 
recommended sanction is disapproved and the Court hereby directs that respondent 
receive a public reprimand to be administered by the Board of Governors of The 
Florida Bar at a date and time to be determined by the Board. 
 
Respondent is further placed on probation for one year, effective 
immediately, under the following terms and conditions: 
 
(1) attendance at the next scheduled Advertising Workshop of The Florida 
Bar; and 
 
(2) prior to publication, approval of all advertisements by The Florida Bar's 
Standing Committee on Advertising. 
 
Further, Respondent is hereby enjoined from the use of the term "Expert" or 
"Experts" in all legal advertisements and any trade name. 
 
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Gary Elvin Doane in 
the amount of $2,240.46, for which sum let execution issue. 
 
Not final until time expires to file motion for rehearing, and if filed, 
determined. 
 
 
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and 
PERRY, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion, in which CANADY and PERRY, JJ., 
concur. 
LEWIS, J., dissents with an opinion. 
 
 
2 
 
PARIENTE, J., concurring. 
The respondent is not being disciplined because he held himself out as a 
―specialist‖ or ―expert‖ in an area of law in which he was certified.  He is being 
disciplined because he used the trade name ―Legal Experts,‖ when he was a sole 
practitioner who was not certified by The Florida Bar in all fields of specialization.  
The use of this trade name is misleading to the public. 
This lawyer had been using this trade name since April 2006, prior to our 
approval of the Bar‘s request to allow lawyers who are board-certified by The 
Florida Bar to identify themselves as ―experts.‖  Even as approved, the rules 
provide that an attorney who is board-certified in a particular area of the law by 
The Florida Bar may use the designations ―board certified,‖ ―specialist,‖ or 
―expert,‖ but he or she needs to include the area of certification.  As set forth in 
rule 4-7.2(c)(6)(A) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, a lawyer who is 
certified by The Florida Bar in a particular area of the law ―may inform the public 
and other lawyers of the lawyer‘s certified areas of legal practice.  Such 
communications should identify The Florida Bar as the certifying organization and 
may state that the lawyer is ‗certified,‘ ‗board certified,‘ a ‗specialist in (area of 
certification),‘ or an ‗expert in (area of certification).‘ ‖  
To use the trade name ―Legal Experts‖ or even ―Legal Specialists‖ violates 
the rules in two ways.  First, as mentioned, the respondent is a sole practitioner. 
3 
 
Second, he can only use the designation ―legal expert‖ or ―legal specialist‖ with 
the area of certification.  The use of the trade name in respondent‘s legal 
advertisements and communications is a clear violation of rule 4-7.2(c)(6)(A) and 
a clear abuse of the Florida certification plan as set forth in chapter 6 of the Rules 
Regulating the Florida Bar.  The use of the trade name is misleading to the public, 
and I concur in the Court‘s decision that Gary Elvin Doane should be publicly 
reprimanded for his actions. 
CANADY and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
 
LEWIS, J., dissenting. 
Under rules fashioned by The Florida Bar and approved by a majority of this 
Court, solo practitioner Gary Elvin Doane became board-certified in the area of 
civil trial law.  According to misdirected rules but rules certainly in full force and 
effect, he became authorized to use the title ―expert.‖  Thereafter, Doane utilized 
advertisements that referred to the trade name of his law firm as ―Legal Experts, 
L.L.C.‖ and ―Legal Experts, P.L.‖  The Florida Bar contends that this trade name 
and type of advertising violates certain rules regulating lawyers in Florida.  
Accordingly, the majority now enjoins Doane from the use of either the singular 
term ―expert‖ or the plural term ―experts‖ in all legal advertisements and any trade 
name.  I dissent from this foreseeable result which is the natural and inevitable 
4 
 
consequence of this Court allowing lawyers to mislead the public with bar-
sanctioned, advertising-based deception by use of the title ―expert.‖ 
Doane has been caught in the tangled morass of problematic rules created by 
this Court and The Florida Bar in the march for certification of lawyers as 
―experts.‖  The Florida Bar requested and a majority of this Court approved 
amendments to the rules regulating advertising of legal certifications to allow 
individual lawyers to identify themselves as ―experts.‖  See In re Amendments to 
the Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar, 978 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2007); In re Amendments to 
the Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar––Advertising, 971 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2007).  To no 
avail, I dissented with regard to the advertising pandering of adding the deceptive 
designation of the useless and misleading term ―expert‖ to the arsenal of 
salutations that board-certified attorneys may unleash on the public.  See 971 So. 
2d at 765.  The use of the hyperbolic term ―expert‖ may mislead the public to 
believe that they are purchasing the legal representation of an ―expert‖ attorney 
who is a preeminent mind in a field of law and therefore better able to obtain a 
desirable result for the client due to this possibly inaccurate and unverifiable 
moniker.    
Now, an individual in accordance with the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 
and this Court‘s approval was allowed to hold himself out under the very 
inappropriate label of ―expert,‖ but is being disciplined under these disjointed 
5 
 
advertising rules for engaging in practices which The Florida Bar urged this Court 
to allow.  I do not dissent because I approve of the actions taken by Doane—in 
fact, I fully disapprove of the concept of The Florida Bar designating ―experts.‖   
However, the fundamental and primary problem rests in this Court‘s approval of 
the use of the term ―expert‖ in the first place.  This Court should have never 
allowed attorneys to exploit inexperienced clients by adopting the unverifiable, 
qualitatively based designation of ―expert.‖  This nonsensical advertising farce is 
demonstrated by a situation recently before this Court.  We first allowed a lawyer 
to be identified as an ―expert‖ in appellate law only to discover that he was not 
qualified to handle capital cases before this Court.  This resulted in the Court 
reporting the deficiencies and actually precluding him from handling capital cases 
here.  See Admin. Order No. AOSC10-6 (Fla. Sup. Ct. Feb. 19, 2010).  
Accordingly, I must dissent from this Court‘s decision to sanction a lawyer for 
engaging in the use of a deceptive and misleading moniker that this Court 
previously approved when it amended the rules to allow lawyers to advertise and 
market themselves as legal ―experts.‖ 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
6 
 
 
 
jn 
Served: 
 
HON. PHILIP JAMES YACUCCI, JR., JUDGE 
KENNETH LAWRENCE MARVIN 
KESHARA DARCEL DAVIS 
JAN K. WICHROWSKI 
GARY ELVIN DOANE