Title: The Florida Bar v. Gary Elvin Doane  (order)

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 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) 
 
 
Respondent's Motion for Rehearing is hereby denied.  
 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and 
PERRY, JJ., concur. 
LEWIS, J., dissents with an opinion. 
 
LEWIS, J., dissenting. 
 
I dissent with regard to the denial of rehearing and the prior decision of the 
majority to sanction a lawyer for utilizing a designation previously approved by 
this Court and refusing to reconsider that the factual basis for the majority‟s 
decision does not exist.  In Florida Bar v. Doane, 35 Fla. L. Weekly S278 (Fla. 
May 20, 2010), we approved the referee‟s recommendation of guilt due to the 
respondent‟s use of the trade name “Legal Experts.”  Id. at S278 (Pariente, J., 
concurring).  On rehearing, however, the respondent has demonstrated that facts 
relied on in the concurring opinion, which purports to be representative of the 
majority, are wrong. 
2 
 
 
The concurrence to the majority‟s sanction order accused the respondent of 
using a trade name in a fashion that is misleading to the public.  See Doane, 35 Fla. 
L. Weekly at S278.  Specifically, the concurrence stated, “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.”  Id. (emphasis 
supplied).  On rehearing, the respondent demonstrated that the evidence in the 
record establishes that in all instances when he referenced his designation of 
“Legal Experts” on the sign outside his office, his business card, and his website, 
the phrase “Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer” was included immediately below 
the trade name.  The respondent‟s inclusion of his specific certification specifically 
negates any notion that his trade name was misleading to the public as stated to be 
the basis for discipline and effectively establishes his consistency with the Rules 
Regulating the Florida Bar.  Respondent‟s compliance with the rules is also 
supported by the fact that the grievance committee of The Florida Bar found no 
probable cause in this matter and there has never been a complaining party with 
regard to misleading the public.  
 
Discipline is not warranted here.  Accordingly, I dissent. 
 
 
3 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
jn 
Served: 
 
KENNETH LAWRENCE MARVIN 
KESHARA DARCEL DAVIS 
JAN K. WICHROWSKI 
GARY ELVIN DOANE 
HON. PHILIP JAMES YACUCCI, JR., JUDGE