Title: The Florida Bar v. Jeffrey Charles Regan

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2022 
 
CASE NO.: SC20-1693 
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 
2021-00,002(4B) 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR 
vs. 
JEFFREY CHARLES REGAN 
 
Complainant(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
Upon consideration of the Amended Report of Referee, the 
Amended Motion to Assess Costs, and the briefs filed in this case, 
the Court hereby approves the referee’s findings of fact and 
recommended finding of not guilty as to all violations charged.  The 
referee’s recommendation of diversion is disapproved. 
Respondent is hereby found not guilty of the alleged 
misconduct.  Accordingly, this case is dismissed. 
Each party shall bear its own costs. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION 
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, and 
GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 
COURIEL, J., dissents with an opinion, in which LABARGA, J., 
concurs. 
 
CASE NO.: SC20-1693 
Page Two 
 
 
COURIEL, J., dissenting. 
I would have approved the referee’s findings of fact, rejected 
his finding as to guilt, and ordered a public reprimand in this case. 
Our Rules of Professional Conduct state that “[a] lawyer shall 
not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, 
or through callous indifference, disparage [or] humiliate . . . other 
lawyers on any basis.”  R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d). 
Respondent, a member of the bar for almost four decades, was 
lead counsel to the plaintiff in a significant case that had been 
pending for a long time.  Confronted with what he thought were 
meritless pleadings from a newcomer to the litigation, he sent two 
emails on June 20, 2020, that, on their face, are clear and 
convincing evidence of disparagement and humiliation of opposing 
counsel in violation of the rule.  Nobody disputes that the messages 
were sent.  Respondent remembers writing, but not sending, one of 
them—but off it indisputably went. 
To Respondent’s credit, he acknowledges that his 
“correspondence was unprofessional, undignified, rude, and 
CASE NO.: SC20-1693 
Page Three 
 
 
outlandish” and that there is “no place in the practice of law for 
such correspondence.”  Amended Report of Referee at 12-13.  Yet it 
is incumbent upon us to say so, and to say so with force and clarity 
when such words come from the most senior and trusted members 
of our profession. 
LABARGA, J., concurs. 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
 
 
 
so 
Served: 
ELEANOR HADDEN SILLS 
CHRIS W. ALTENBERND 
JOSEPH ARNOLD CORSMEIER 
HON. CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY FRANCE, JUDGE 
PATRICIA ANN TORO SAVITZ