Source: http://www.sunethics.com/le---disciplinary-proc.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:10:52+00:00

Document:
Lawyer was admitted to the Bar in February 2016.  She worked at Kohl’s department store and was having financial difficulties.  On 3 separate occasions in April and May 2016, Lawyer stole money from Kohl’s ($140, $100, and $520).  Lawyer was arrested and charged with grand theft.  She pleaded guilty to a first-degree misdemeanor.  Adjudication was withheld and she was placed on probation, with other requirements including community service and restitution.
The Bar filed ethics charges against Lawyer.  She admitted to the facts and violations.  A sanction hearing was held, and the referee found that Lawyer fully cooperated, that she voluntarily entered into a treatment contract with Florida Lawyers Assistance (“FLA”) (although her misconduct “was not related to alcohol or drug abuse or a gambling addition”), and that none of the stolen funds were related to the practice of law.  The referee recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of violating Rules 3-4.3 (misconduct); 3-4.4 (criminal misconduct); 4-8.4(b) (criminal conduct reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness); and 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The referee recommended a 10-day suspension and a 1-year probation.
The Court further explained:  “Although this Court has begun to impose harsher sanctions for attorney misconduct, even this Court’s most recent cases do not justify disbarring [Lawyer].  . . . While her misconduct was inexcusable, [Lawyer]’s theft did not involve client funds and was unrelated to the practice of law.”  Lawyer had substantial mitigation, including cooperating with authorities.
Justice Pariente also dissented, asserting that the appropriate sanction would be a shorter suspension in the range of 91 days to 1 year.   Florida Bar v. Kinsella, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC17-55, 12/20/2018), 2018 WL 6711476.
The Bar then filed a complaint alleging various rules violations.  The case was tried before the same referee.  The referee made findings favorable to Lawyer and recommended that he be found guilty of violating Rules 4-1.15 (safekeeping property) and 5-1.1(b) (applying trust property to specific purpose), but found not guilty of violating Rules 3-4.3 (misconduct); 4-8.1(a) (false statements in disciplinary matters); 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 5-1.1(a) (money or property entrusted to lawyer).  The referee recommended no further disciplinary sanctions.  Additionally, she recommended that Lawyer pay the Bar’s administrative costs of $1250 but that the Bar pay Lawyer’s defense costs in the amount of $143,913.
The Bar challenged the not guilty findings as to Rules 4-8.4(c) and 5-1.1(a), as well as the recommended discipline.
In an opinion highly critical of the referee, the Court found the 2 additional rule violations sought by the Bar relating to Lawyer engaging “in dishonest and deceitful conduct by using one client’s funds to pay obligations owed to another client,” disapproved 2 findings in mitigation, and disbarred Lawyer.  Calling the referee’s report “inadequate” and her factual findings “incomplete,” the Court also took the unusual step of directing “that no further proceedings in this case shall be held before” the referee.
The Court also found a violation of Rule 5-1.1(a) because Lawyer had deposited personal funds and funds and loans from a co-counsel arrangement into the trust account, thus commingling funds.
The Court then decided that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.  The Court summarized:  “After [Lawyer] discovered that client funds were misappropriated under his former partner’s direction, he continued to leave that person in charge of the trust account without putting in place any safeguards to prevent further misappropriation.  Further, client funds continued to be misappropriated under [Lawyer’s] direction even after the former partner left the firm.  Because this case is not one in which an employee stole funds from an unwitting attorney, it involves more severe conduct than that at issue in [Florida Bar v.] Johnson [132 So.3d 32 (Fla. 2013)].  Unlike Johnson, there is no finding by the referee in this case that [Lawyer’s] firm’s trust funds were stolen without [Lawyer’s] knowledge.  To the contrary, improper transfers continued to occur even after [Lawyer] became aware of them.  He could have stopped further improper transfers from occurring by taking active control of the trust account himself and putting in place procedures that would prevent further improper transfers; the record is clear that [Lawyer] chose to do neither, and that improper transfers continued to occur under his supervision.  Like the attorneys in [Florida Bar v.] Rousso [117 So.3d 756 (Fla. 2013)], [Lawyer] entirely abandoned his duty to protect client funds held in trust.  This Court will not allow attorneys to abdicate their responsibility to protect clients’ property and enjoy the privilege of practicing law.”  Florida Bar v. Alters, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC14-100, 11/21/2018), 2018 WL 6074625.
Lawyer represented Client in a civil case against City and other defendants.  The trial court struck the pleadings on the ground that Client committed perjury.  The court also awarded fees to City and imposed sanctions on Lawyer and Client for acting in bad faith.  Lawyer subsequently sent a letter to the presiding judge complaining about the case and implying that a Third DCA judge was biased.  This letter was sent to other judges in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and the Third District.
After affirming a final judgment awarding more than $160,000 in fees against Lawyer and Client equally, the Third DCA issued an order to show cause why Lawyer should not have fees imposed against Lawyer and Client for pursuing a frivolous appeal.  Lawyer’s response contained “incendiary and disparaging comments.”  The Third DCA found that the claims raised by Lawyer on appeal were frivolous and ordered him to pay appellate fees.
The Bar charged Lawyer with various rules violations, but the referee who tried the discipline case found Lawyer guilty of violating only Rule 3-4.3 (Misconduct and Minor Misconduct).  The referee recommend that Lawyer be found not guilty of violating Rules 4-1.7 (conflict of interest), 4-8.2(a) (false or reckless statements made concerning integrity of judge), and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).  The referee recommended that Lawyer be admonished and placed on probation.  The Bar sought Supreme Court review.
The Supreme Court found additional rules violations and suspended Lawyer for one year.
Both Lawyer and Client had a financial interest in the $160,000 fee order against them, which created a conflict of interest for Lawyer.  “That interest created a clear and substantial risk of materially limiting [Lawyer]’s independent judgment and loyalty to [Client], who had an interest in reducing or eliminating her liability under the December 18, 2013, order, even if it was not to the benefit of [Lawyer].  Given the existence of such risk, [Lawyer] was required under Bar Rule 4-1.7(b)(4) to obtain [Client]’s informed consent, confirmed in writing, to his continued representation of her.”  Although the record contained no indication that he obtained such consent, Lawyer continued to represent Client.  Lawyer’s own “personal and financial interests” were the focus of the appeal, however, “despite the loyalty he owed” to Client.  The Court concluded that Lawyer violated Rule 4-1.7.
After reviewing the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and case law, the Court suspended Lawyer for one year.   Florida Bar v. Patterson, __ So.3d __ (Fla., Case No. SC16-1438, 10/19/2018), 2018 WL 5095158.
A hearing was held before a referee, who subsequently recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of violating multiple rules (3-5.1(e), 3-5.1(h), 3-6.1(c), 4-8.4(c)) and disbarred.  Lawyer sought review in the Florida Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court approved all of the guilty recommendations except one (Lawyer violated rule 3-6.1(d)(1) rather than 3-6.1(c)).  The Court disbarred Lawyer, noting that case law supported such a sanction.  See Florida Bar v. Norkin, 183 So.3d 1018 (Fla. 2015); Florida Bar v. Lobasz, 64 So.3d 1167 (Fla. 2011); Florida Bar v. D’Ambrosio, 25 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 2009); Florida Bar v. Forrester, 916 So.2d 647 (Fla. 2005); Florida Bar v. Rood, 678 So.2d (Fla. 1996); Florida Bar v. Greene, 589 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1991).
Lawyer also raised an equal protection argument, which the Court rejected.  “[Lawyer] argues that ‘[t]he rules treat suspended attorneys that are working as a legal assistant differently than individuals who are not lawyers and working as legal assistants,’ and that as a result, her equal protection rights were violated.  The Bar disagrees, pointing out that [Lawyer] is not a nonlawyer, and as such, is subject to the Bar Rules.  One such prohibition is that a suspended attorney shall not engage in direct client contact with clients.  [Lawyer] violated that prohibition.  Contrary to [Lawyer]’s belief, there is no constitutional right to practice law; rather, it is a privilege to which the Court has exclusive jurisdiction under the Florida Constitution to oversee.  Based upon this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction, we have ‘the inherent power and duty to prescribe standards of conduct for lawyers, to determine what constitutes grounds for discipline of lawyers, to discipline for cause attorneys admitted to practice law in Florida, and to revoke the license of every lawyer whose unfitness to practice law has been duly established.’  R. Regulating the Fla. Bar 3-1.2.  Having violated the Bar Rules 3-5.1(e), 3-5.1(h), and 4-8.4(c) – i.e, having failed to provide notice to her clients and the courts where she had cases pending that she was under suspension, being in direct contact with clients and judicial staff on behalf of her clients pertaining to those cases, holding herself out to be authorized to practice law, and then continuing to act on behalf of her clients without acknowledging that she was no longer so authorized to act – [Lawyer] can hardly claim that she acted only as any paralegal or legal assistant would do.”   Florida Bar v. Bosecker, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC16-1387, 9/27/2018), 2018 WL 4657111.
The Bar charged Lawyer with ethical violations, and the referee recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of violating Rules 3-4.3 (misconduct); 4-3.4(a) (unlawfully obstructing access to evidence or unlawfully altering, destroying, or concealing documents or materials lawyer knows or reasonably should know are relevant to pending or reasonably foreseeable proceeding); 4-3.4(b) (fabricating evidence); 4-3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying obligation under rules of tribunal); 4-3.4(d) (engaging in pretrial procedure, making frivolous discovery request, or intentionally failing to comply with legally proper discovery request); 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 4-8.4(d) (conduct in connection with practice of law that is prejudicial to administration of justice).  The referee recommended a one-year suspension.
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that Lawyer’s involvement in the divorce case as a party was relevant to the disciplinary case.  “Although [Lawyer] committed this misconduct as a party to his own divorce, lawyers ‘do not cast aside the oath they take as an attorney or their professional responsibilities’ just because they are litigants in personal matters.”  (Citations omitted.)   Florida Bar v. Marcellus, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC16-1773, 7/19,2018), 2018 WL _______.
Lawyer represented 2 clients who were incarcerated.  During a visit to the detention facility, Lawyer and the clients “engaged in sexual activities initiated by [Lawyer].  [Lawyer] solicited the sexual conduct with one client by depositing money into her personal bank account and with the other client by promising free or discounted legal services designed to achieve a reduced jail sentence.”  Lawyer was charged criminally.  He pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery.
The Florida Bar brought ethical charges against Lawyer.  The referee recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of violating Rules 3-4.4 (misconduct), 4-8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate Rules of Professional Conduct), 4-8.4(b) (lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyer), and 4-8.4(i) (lawyer shall not engage in sexual conduct with client that exploits or adversely affects interests of client or lawyer-client relationship).  The referee recommended an 18-month suspension.
The Supreme Court approved the recommendations of guilt but rejected the 18-month suspension as too lenient.  Instead, the Court disbarred Lawyer.  The Court noted that it “has moved toward imposing harsher sanctions . . . and has stated that it ‘will strictly enforce the rule against lawyers engaging in sexual conduct with a client that exploits the lawyer-client relationship.’”  (Citations omitted.)  The Court concluded:  “[E]videnced by this Court’s case law, under no circumstances should an attorney representing a client expose that client to unwanted sexual relations of any kind.  [Lawyer’s]s conduct, which exploited his clients’ circumstances for his own personal benefit, ‘breeds contempt and distrust of lawyers,’ ‘demonstrates severe moral turpitude,’ and such actions ‘are wholly inconsistent with approved professional standards.’  [Florida Bar v.] McHenry, 605 So. 2d [459 (Fla. 1992)] at 461.  Based upon the foregoing, [Lawyer] is disbarred from the practice of law.”  Florida Bar v. Blackburn, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC17-1514, 5/24/2018), 2018 WL 2355338.
Lawyer Gilbert hired Sacks to work in Gilbert’s law office.  Sacks was living in a halfway house after being released from federal prison following wire fraud convictions.  Sacks claimed to be CPA and a disbarred New York lawyer, but he was neither.  Gilbert did not investigate regarding Sacks’ criminal history or his claims regarding credentials.
Eventually Gilbert put Sacks in charge of administering the law firm’s operating and trust accounts.  After Sacks stole a check and forged Gilbert’s name on an operating account check, Gilbert fired him.  Gilbert later rehired Sacks and gave him even more responsibility.  Gilbert lied to Sacks’ probation officer about the circumstances.  Ultimately Sacks embezzled almost $5 million from the firm’s trust account.
The Bar charged Gilbert with multiple rules violations, including failure to supervise his nonlawyer employee, trust accounting violations, and dishonesty.  The referee recommended that Gilbert be found guilty and suspended for 2 years.
The Court approved the guilty findings but increased the discipline to disbarment.  The Court commented:  “Whether Gilbert was aware of or personally involved in the theft is not the critical inquiry. Indeed, this case gives new meaning to the phrase “turning a blind eye.” Gilbert, as an attorney and fiduciary, was directly responsible for his firm’s trust account and for the supervision of employees. As an attorney, he owed a duty to the public and to his clients to safeguard their money. Instead, he flouted the system by lying to a federal probation officer and allowing a nonattorney to hold himself out as a law school graduate and a certified public accountant (CPA).”  Florida Bar v. Gilbert, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC15-2004, 3/22/2018), 2018 WL 1417440.
Lawyer, who had twice been disciplined for professionalism-related rules violations, was charged by the Bar with new violations.  In one count, Lawyer was accused of saying “lie, lie, lie” while opposing counsel was questioning Lawyer’s law partner.  Lawyer denied saying the words, but the judge testified that she heard it.  The referee in the disciplinary case found the judge’s testimony credible, and recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of violating Rule 4-3.5(c) (conduct intended to disrupt tribunal) and Rule 4-8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate Rules of Professional Conduct).
On another count, Lawyer was accused of repeatedly kicking the leg of the counsel table.  Opposing counsel testified that the kicking was done “in a manner that was disruptive of the proceedings.”  The judge’s testimony supported this characterization.  Further, the judge testified that Lawyer’s behavior at trial was “awful, that he was not respectful to the court or obeyed orders, and that [the judge] was ‘appalled’.”  For this count, the referee recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of violating Rule 4-3.5(c) (conduct intended to disrupt tribunal) and Rule 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The referee recommended a 3-year suspension, to be served consecutively to the current 3-year suspension that he is serving.  The Supreme Court approved the findings regarding the violations, but increased the discipline to disbarment.
The Court concluded:  “[Lawyer]’s intentional and egregious misconduct continues to demonstrate an attitude that is wholly inconsistent with professional standards, and there is no indication that he is willing to follow the professional ethics of the legal profession.  . . .  Thus, based upon the foregoing discussion, the Court is left with but one course of action, and that is to disbar [Lawyer].”  Florida Bar v. Ratiner, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC13-539, 2/22/2018), 2018 WL 1007927.
That is exactly what happened to several of Lawyer’s clients.  When Lawyer attempted to represent two of them in their criminal cases, he was disqualified for conflict of interest.  He also failed to refund their attorney’s fees, and when he failed to appear at a show cause hearing a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Three other clients were given erroneous advice after law enforcement had visited their residence, and the next day they were arrested on marijuana charges after a SWAT team raid.  These clients accepted plea deals of 3 years’ probation, a $15,000 fine, and 100 hours of community service.  One of the clients lost her nursing license, another client lost his engineering job, and the landlord sued them all for damages to the home from the raid and got a $25,000 judgment.
The Bar charged Lawyer with ethical violations, and the referee recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of violating Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.2(d), 4-1.5(a), 4-1.7(a)(2), 4-5.3(a), 4-5.3(b), 4-5.3(c), 4-8.4(a), and 4-8.4(c).  As for punishment, the referee recommended a two-year suspension.  The Supreme Court disagreed and ordered Lawyer disbarred, noting that “[t]he most prominent features of Respondent’s misconduct are incompetence and extremely serious harm to clients.”  Florida Bar v. Christensen, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC16-1081, 1/18/2018), 2018 WL 459360.
Lawyer was charged by the Bar with two counts of soliciting clients.  The first count accused Lawyer of involvement in a “patient-recruiting scheme.”  In the second count, Lawyer was charged with going to a hospital and approaching the mother of a person who “suffered traumatic brain injury” in a motor vehicle accident and successfully soliciting her to become his client for a fee.  Lawyer asserted that his office had called him and told him to visit the client, but the referee found this explanation to be insufficient.
The Court concluded:  “Unethical violations of the solicitation rule, such as the ones committed by [Lawyer] in this case, have the potential to harm people who are already in a vulnerable condition and bring dishonor and disgrace on the entire legal profession.  This Court will not tolerate these improper solicitations and will ‘impose severe sanctions on those who commit violations of them.’”   (Citation omitted.)   Florida Bar v. Dopazo, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC15-1305, 10/5/2017), 2017 WL 4416092.
The parties entered a marital settlement agreement under which Wife would return $12,000 of the funds that had been disbursed to her.  The court did not require Lawyer to re-deposit any money into the trust account “because the court concluded that the dispute had been resolved in the marital settlement agreement.”  The court, however, referred Lawyer to the Florida Bar for investigation.
The Bar’s auditor found several instances of improper trust account maintenance, including having balances lower than they should have been, depositing earned fees into the trust account and thus commingling funds, and 3 overdrafts on the trust account.  The referee found Lawyer had violated these rules:  4-3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying obligation under rules of tribunal); 5-1.1(a) (holding funds belonging to others in trust, separate from the lawyer’s own property); and 5-1.1(b) (money entrusted to a lawyer for specific purpose is held in trust and must be applied only to that purpose).  The referee recommended a 90-day suspension and 1 year of probation.
Both the Bar and Lawyer sought Supreme Court review; Lawyer challenged findings in aggravation and mitigation, and both parties challenged the recommended sanction. The Supreme Court increased the sanction to a 1-year suspension followed by 2 years of probation with conditions.
The Court did agree with Lawyer that there was not sufficient support for the referee’s finding that Lawyer acted with a dishonest or selfish motive.  The referee’s report, based on a joint stipulation as to the facts, noted that Lawyer acted based on his “genuine understanding” of Florida law.  The Bar contended that the fact that Lawyer used some of the funds to pay his fee showed that his motives were “inherently selfish.”  The Court disagreed.  “[T]here is no evidence to indicate that [Lawyer] was not entitled to fees in his representation of the client, and the Bar did not allege that the fee was prohibited or excessive in violation of Bar Rule 4-1.5.  Collecting a legally proper attorney’s fee, without more, is not itself a selfish or dishonest act.”  Further, careless accounting does not evidence a dishonest or selfish motive.
As for the sanction, negligence in his trust accounting and disbursing the trust funds without a court order resolving the matter was sufficient grounds for the Court to reject the referee’s recommendation and impose the harsher sanction of a 1-year suspension followed by 2 years of probation. Florida Bar v. Brutus, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC14-2499, 5/4/2017), 2017 WL 1739231.
The Florida Bar charged Lawyer with violating various ethics rules in connection with his representation of a client in federal court.  The federal case had been dismissed due to “discovery violations that demonstrated a clear pattern of contumacious conduct.”  The federal court specifically found that Lawyer made an intentional misrepresentation to the court when he electronically served a “Notice of Serving Responses to Discovery Requests” that was linked to a pending motion to compel written discovery.  This led the magistrate judge to believe that Lawyer was providing the requested discovery materials, when no such materials were being provided.
The referee found that Lawyer had violated these rules:  4-1.1 (competence); 4-3.1 (frivolous assertions); 4-3.3 (candor toward a tribunal); 4-3.4(a) (unlawfully obstruct access to evidence); 4-3.4(c) (disobeying court rules or orders); 4-3.4(d) (discovery violations); and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).  The Supreme Court approved these findings despite challenges from Lawyer.
Lawyer also argued that he was deprived of a fair trial because:  “(1) although he elected not to testify, the referee questioned him after the parties rested their cases, he was not placed under oath for such questioning, and the referee relied on [Lawyer]’s answers to these questions in making her findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt; and (2) the Bar was also allowed to cross-examine [Lawyer] after it rested its case.”  The Court rejected this argument.  A Bar disciplinary proceeding is a “quasi-judicial administrative proceeding” and is not civil or criminal, so the referee is not bound by the technical rules of evidence.  And, unless the respondent has claimed an applicable privilege, he or she may be called as a witness by the Bar and questioned on matters material to the issues in the case.  “Construing these principles together, we conclude the referee is authorized to ask questions of the respondent to clarify relevant facts and issues, even if the respondent does not testify as a witness.  And, in any disciplinary proceeding, the respondent has an obligation to answer the referee’s questions truthfully, regardless of whether he or she is placed under oath.”  The court further concluded that allowing the Bar to cross-examine Lawyer after the referee’s questioning and after the Bar had rested its case did not prejudice Lawyer, where his counsel was given the same opportunity. Florida Bar v. Bischoff, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC14-2049, 3/2/2017), 2017 WL 823598.
Lawyer asked Client for $500 to be used for deposition transcripts.  Client gave Lawyer a $500 check, which Lawyer deposited into his operating account rather than his trust account.  Lawyer did not pay for the transcripts.  Several months later, Client inquired about the transcripts.  Lawyer told Client that he had financial problems and used the money to pay expenses.  Client indicated that she would pay the court reporter directly.  Lawyer agreed to repay the money when he could.  Almost a year later, Lawyer had not repaid the money.  Almost a year after the original check was issued to Lawyer, he told Client that he had performed additional post-judgment legal services for which the fees would be more than $500, and offered to forgo charging for the additional services if Client would drop her demand for the $500.
A month later Client filed a bar complaint against Lawyer.  Subsequently Lawyer met Client at a bank and paid Client the $500 “on the condition that [Client] would request dismissal of the Bar grievance she filed against” him.  Lawyer gave Client a receipt indicating that the money was repaid and requesting that the Bar complaint be dismissed.  When contacted by the Bar, Lawyer provided the Bar with a copy of the receipt.  Lawyer also filed an inaccurate Certificate of Disclosure form indicating that he was not part of a legal firm (when he actually was).
Lawyer was found guilty of violating Rules 3-7.1(f) (notice of grievance to lawyer’s law firm), 4-1.5 (fees), and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).  The referee recommended a 90-day suspension.  The Supreme Court, however, suspended Lawyer for one year.  Lawyer “converted client funds for his own use and repaid the funds at a later time. In addition, as in [Florida Bar v.] Frederick [756 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2000)], he attempted to condition the repayment upon the client’s agreement not to complain to the Bar about his misconduct.  Based on the existing case law, we conclude that the Bar is correct that a one-year suspension, followed by two years’ probation with the conditions recommended by the referee, is warranted.  As we have noted many times, misuse or misappropriation of client funds is one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit, and disbarment is presumed to be the appropriate punishment.  Fla. Bar v. Travis, 765 So.2d 689, 691 (Fla. 2000).  We see no reason under the circumstances of this case, even given the referee’s uncontested findings of mitigation, to impose anything less than a rehabilitative suspension.” Florida Bar v. Wynn, __ So.3d __ (Fla., No. SC15-1323, 2/16/2017), 2017 WL 632871.
Supreme Court rejects “narrow view” of what constitutes competent representation, and increases discipline to be imposed on lawyer for “pattern of client neglect and mismanagement.”  [Added 12/28/16] -- Florida Bar v. Picon, 205 So.3d 759 (Fla. 2016).
Supreme Court rejects referee’s recommendation and disbars rather than suspends 2 lawyers for involvement in secret settlement with insurer that effectively deprived co-counsel of fees and failed to disclose information to clients. [Added 10/31/16] -- Florida Bar v. Kane, 202 So.3d 11 (Fla. 2016).
Supreme Court permanently disbars 2 lawyers whose conduct “is among the most shocking, unethical, and unprofessional” ever seen by Court. [Added 8/25/16] -- Florida Bar v. Adams, 198 So.3d 593 (Fla. 2016).
Court had no authority to order lawyer to “self-report” to Florida Bar and to put confirmation of reporting in public court file. [Added 7/13/16] -- Parrish v. RL REGI Financial, LLC, 194 So.3d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
Complaint alleging defamation against Florida Bar due to posting of disciplinary status on Bar’s website was properly dismissed by circuit court. [Added 6/8/16] -- Zavadil v. Florida Bar (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D15-3573, 6/8/2016), 2016 WL 3190918.
Supreme Court suspends lawyer for 3 years instead of recommended 90 days for violations of Rule 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, fraud) and 5-1.1(b) (trust accounting).  [Added 6/2/16] -- Florida Bar v. Marrero, 192 So.3d 23 (Fla. 2016).
Circuit court did not depart from essential requirements of law in staying litigation pending results of Bar disciplinary case against one party’s lawyer filed by other party. [Added 12/23/15] -- Florida Wellness & Rehab Center, Inc. v. Libman, 178 So.3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
Supreme Court suspends lawyer for one year (rather than recommended 91 days) for bad faith conduct in violating court orders. [Added 6/3/15] -- Florida Bar v. Rosenberg, 169 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 2015).
Supreme Court increases lawyer’s suspension to one year for knowingly violating discovery obligations, failing to correct false testimony at deposition, and failing to notify opponent that she was in possession of property in which opponent claimed interest. [Added 4/24/15] -- Fla. Bar v. Dupee, 160 So.3d 838 (Fla. 2015).
Supreme Court suspends, rather than just reprimands, lawyer for lack of diligence despite fact that client suffered no harm.  [Added 2/12/2015] -- Florida Bar v. Cohen, 157 So.3d 283 (Fla. 2015).
Rejecting referee’s report, Supreme Court finds lawyer guilty of misrepresentation and trust account violations and remands for sanctions hearing. [Added 1/26/15] -- Florida Bar v. Marrero, 157 So.3d 1020 (Fla. 2015).
Settlement agreement conditioned on former client’s withdrawal of Bar complaint is unenforceable term that is not severable from purported agreement. [Added 9/2/14] -- Jaffe v. Guardianship of Michael Ross Jaffe, 147 So.3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Supreme Court disbars lawyer for "continuing pattern of neglect" in divorce case. [Added 6/23/14] -- Florida Bar v. Davis, 149 So.3d 1121 (Fla. 2014).
Former judge is disbarred rather than suspended for “dishonest conduct and the harm that her actions have caused to the administration of justice in a capital first-degree murder case.” [Added 6/6/14] -- Florida Bar v. Gardiner, 183 So.3d 240 (Fla. 2014).
Emphasizing deterrence effect of severe disciplinary sanctions, Supreme Court suspends lawyer for 3 years rather than 6 months for filing forged document and failing to promptly return funds to former client. [Added 6/4/14] -- Florida Bar v. Ross, 140 So.3d 518 (Fla. 2014).
Although not charged with or convicted of a crime, a lawyer is suspended by the Supreme Court for 1 year rather than the recommended 89 days for failure to file tax returns. [Added 5/14/14] -- Florida Bar v. Erlenbach, 138 So.3d 369 (Fla. 2014).
In disciplining bar member who was judicial candidate, Supreme Court reaffirms that prohibition against personal solicitation of campaign funds is constitutional. [Added 5/7/14] -- Florida Bar v. Williams-Yulee, 138 So.3d 379 (Fla. 2014).
Per Supreme Court, lawyer serving as appointed guardian is treated as attorney of record for purposes of rule requiring notice to a court when lawyer is suspended from practice. [Added 5/1/14] -- Florida Bar v. Townsend, 145 So.3d 775 (Fla. 2014).
Finding accused lawyer guilty of additional rules violations, Supreme Court imposes 3 year suspension rather than recommended 91 days. [Added 4/21/14] -- Florida Bar v. Committe, 136 So.3d 1111 (Fla. 2014).
Lawyer’s false and misleading statements regarding filing tax return for client result in 90-day suspension rather than recommended sanction of probation.  [Added 12/29/13]  -- Florida Bar v. MacNamara, 132 So.3d 165 (Fla. 2013).
Rejecting respondent lawyer’s arguments as to client identity, Supreme Court suspends him for 1 year instead of 90 days as recommended by referee.  [Added 12/11/13]  --  Florida Bar v. Whitney, 132 So.3d 1095 (Fla. 2013).
Rejecting recommended discipline, Supreme Court suspends lawyer for 91 days for misconduct related to personal loan and for improper client closing statements.  [Added 11/15/13]  -- Florida Bar v. Adler, 126 So.3d 244 (Fla. 11/14/2013).
Supreme Court increases discipline imposed on lawyer for negligent representation in postconviction proceeding.  [Added 11/15/13]  --  Florida Bar v. Polk, 126 So.3d 240 (Fla. 11/14/2013).
Supreme Court ups lawyer’s suspension to 2 years for unprofessional conduct toward judges and opposing counsel.  [Added 11/4/13]  --  Florida Bar v. Norkin, 132 So.3d 77 (Fla. 2013).
Supreme Court disbars rather than suspends lawyer whose gross negligence regarding trust account was insufficient to prove intent to misappropriate funds.  [Added 9/5/13]  --  Florida Bar v. Johnson, 132 So.3d 32 (Fla. 2013).
Court lacked authority to impose monetary sanctions on party for filing Bar complaints against opponent’s lawyers.  [Added 8/26/13]  --  Kass Shuler, P.A. v. Barchard, 120 So.3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA  8/23/2013).
Supreme Court disbars rather than suspends lawyer for “extensive misconduct” of “often egregious nature.”  [Added 6/28/13]  --  Florida Bar v. Swann, 116 So.3d 1225 (Fla. 6/20/2013).
Rejecting recommended 1-year suspension, Supreme Court suspends lawyer for 2 years for undisclosed communications with judge during murder trial.  [Added 6/24/13]  --  Florida Bar v. Scheinberg, 129 So.3d 315 (Fla. 2013).
Supreme Court revokes lawyer’s bar admission for lack of candor in amending application.  [Added 6/7/13  --  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Daniel Mark Zavadil, 123 So.3d 550 (Fla. 5/30/2013).
Supreme Court holds disbarred lawyer who continued to practice in contempt and orders him jailed for 60 days.  [Added 5/14/13]  --  Florida Bar v. Palmer, __ So.3d __, 38 Fla.L.Weekly S312 (Fla., No. SC10-543, 5/9/2013), 2013 WL 1908405.
Lawyers whose bookkeeper embezzled millions in client funds are disbarred for trust accounting violations and their conduct in responding to the problem.  [Added 3/30/13]  --  Florida Bar v. Rousso, 117 So.3d 756 (Fla. 3/28/2013).
Supreme Court imposes harsher-than-recommended discipline, suspending lawyer for misconduct not related to attorney-client representation.  [Added 6/29/12]  --  Florida Bar v. Draughon, 94 So.3d 566 (Fla. 2012).
Suspending rather than admonishing lawyer, Supreme Court broadly construes rule against limiting malpractice liability to client.  [Added 3/19/12]  --  Florida Bar v. Head, 84 So.3d 292 (Fla. 2012).
Supreme Court imposes longer-than-recommended suspension on lawyer for misconduct in bankruptcy representation.  [Added 2/17/12]  --  Florida Bar v. Gwynn, 94 So.3d 425 (Fla. 2/16/2012).
Supreme Court makes additional guilty finding and increases recommended suspension from 10 to 91 days in disciplinary case.  [Added 11/4/11]  --  Florida Bar v. Berthiaume, 78 So.3d 503 (Fla. 2011).
By 4-3 vote Florida Supreme Court rejects Bar's opposition and reinstates lawyer who failed to file delinquent tax returns until he petitioned for reinstatement.  [Added 10/14/11]  --  Florida Bar v. Hudson, 75 So.3d 215 (Fla. 2011).
Supreme Court suspends lawyer for providing improper financial assistance to client.  [Added 6/28/11]  --  Florida Bar v. Patrick, 67 So.3d 1009 (Fla. 2011).
Disbarred lawyer is prohibited from further pro se filings in Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 5/17/11]  --  Florida Bar v. Kivisto, 62 So.3d 1137 (Fla. 2011).
Supreme Court suspends lawyer for 3 years for rule violations in representation of putative class.  [Added 5/4/11]  -- Florida Bar v. Adorno, 60 So.3d 1016 (Fla. 2011).
Lawyer publicly reprimanded for threatening to present criminal charges to gain advantage in civil matter.  [Added 5/2/11]  --  Florida Bar v. Knowles, 64 So.3d 1195 (Fla. 2011).
Supreme Court disbars lawyer for multiple trust account violations.  [Added 4/8/11]  --  Florida Bar v. Mirk, 64 So.3d 1180 (Fla. 2011).
Supreme Court disbars rather than suspends lawyer who practiced while suspended, with 3 concurring justices criticizing conduct of Bar prosecutor.  [Added 2/5/1]  --  Florida Bar v. Lobasz, 64 So.3d 1167 (Fla. 2011).
Lawyer is disbarred, not suspended, for criminal convictions and misconduct relating to drug abuse.  [Added 11/11/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Irish, 48 So.3d 767 (Fla. 2010).
Supreme Court denies rehearing for lawyer disciplined for using trade name "Legal Experts."  [Added 8/31/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Doane, 43 So.3d 640 (Fla. 2010).
Supreme Court disbars rather than suspends lawyer for misusing law to hurt members of public for personal gain.  [Added 8/27/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Hall, 49 So.3d 1254 (Fla. 2010).
Supreme Court rejects suspension recommendation and instead disbars lawyer convicted of drug trafficking.  [Added 8/27/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Liberman, 43 So.3d 36 (Fla. 2010).
Supreme Court imposes stricter discipline than recommended by referee in case involving conflict, competence, and misrepresentation.  [Added 7/14/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Shankman, 41 So.3d 166 (Fla. 2010).
Lawyer permanently disbarred, rather than suspended, for uncharged income tax evasion.  [Added 7/2/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Behm, 41 So.3d 136 (Fla. 2010).
Conduct resulting in finding of no probable cause can be used as aggravating factor in disciplinary case, per Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 6/30/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Ratiner, 46 So.3d 35 (Fla. 2010) (revised opinion).
Supreme Court disciplines lawyer who allowed non-lawyer to have signatory authority on escrow account.  [Added 6/10/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Hines, 39 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 2010).
In conflict of interest case, Florida Supreme Court imposes harsher disciplinary sanction than that recommended by referee.  [Added 6/10/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Scott, 39 So.3d 309 (Fla. 2010).
Supreme Court disciplines lawyer for using firm name containing term "expert."  [Added 5/21/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Doane, 43 So.3d 640 (Fla. 2010).
Supreme rejects referee's recommended sanction and disbars suspended lawyer found guilty of contempt.  [Added 3/2/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Bitterman, 33 So.3d 686 (Fla. 2010).
Supreme Court rejects stipulation for reinstatement of suspended lawyer due to her failure to pay restitution and costs.  [Added 2/19/10]  --  Florida Bar re: Thompson (Fla., No. SC09-263, 2/18/1020).
Supreme Court rejects referee's recommendation of lesser sanction and suspends lawyer for 1 year for violations relating to candor and conflict of interest.  [Added 1/9/10]  --  Florida Bar v. Head, 27 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2010).
Supreme Court disbars lawyer for two instances of engaging in unlicensed practice of law.  [Added 11/18/09]  --  Florida Bar v. D'Ambrosio, 25 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 2009).
Supreme Court sanctions disbarred lawyer who submitted numerous filings seeking readmission.  [Added 9/2/09]  --  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Anthony Eladio Ramos, 17 So.3d 268 (Fla. 2009).
Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for law firm sued on fee-sharing agreement by disciplined attorney.  [Added 8/11/09]  --  Chastain v. Cunningham Law Group, P.A., 16 So.3d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Supreme Court refuses reinstatement for a lawyer who engaged in the "practice of law" while suspended; definition discussed.  [Added 7/13/09]  --  Florida Bar re: Michael Howard Wolf, 21 So.3d 15 (Fla. 2009).
Supreme Court again imposes harsher disciplinary sanctions than recommended by referee, and refuses to recognize personal financial loss and embarrassment in mitigation.  [Added 5/26/09]  --  Florida Bar v. Ticktin, 14 So.3d 928 (Fla. 2009).
Supreme Court disbars lawyer for sexual misconduct, falsifying evidence, and trust account violations.  [Added 5/1/09]  --  Florida Bar v. Tipler, 8 So.3d 1109 (Fla. 2009).
Supreme Court advises Governor that suspended lawyer who was elected to circuit judgeship is not eligible to take judicial office.  [Added 2/4/09]  --  Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Commission of Elected Judge, 17 So.3d 265 (Fla. 2009).
Rejecting lesser sanction, Supreme Court suspends lawyer (who was just elected to the circuit bench) for disrespectful conduct toward a presiding judge.  [Added 1/10/09]  --  Florida Bar v. Abramson, 3 So.2d 964 (Fla. 2009).
Supreme Court again imposes harsher disciplinary sanction than that recommended by referee and sought by Bar.  [Added 10/21/08]  --  Florida Bar v. De la Torre, 994 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2008).
Supreme Court again imposes harsher disciplinary sanctions than those recommended by referee and sought by Bar.  [Added 9/26/08]  --  Florida Bar v. Varner, 992 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2008).
Supreme Court disbars rather than suspends lawyer for having what "was in essence a partnership" with nonlawyer for immigration practice.  [Added 6/30/08]  --  Florida Bar v. Glueck, 985 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 2008).
In "disciplinary case of first impression," Supreme Court rejects recommended discipline and suspends lawyer for misconduct related to adoption.  [Added 6/14/2008]  --  Florida Bar v. Dove, 985 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 2008).
Lawyer who is subject of disciplinary proceedings barred from further pro se filings in case by Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 3/21/08]  --  Florida Bar v. Thompson, 979 So.2d 917 (Fla. 2008).  NOTE:  The Supreme Court subsequently permanently disbarred the lawyer.  Florida Bar v. Thompson, 994 So.2d 306 (Table).
Supreme Court rejects referee's findings of mitigating factors and imposes disbarment rather than recommended suspension.  [Added 1/14/08]  --  Florida Bar v. Valentine-Miller, 974 So.2d 333 (Fla. 2008).
In disciplinary case, Florida Supreme Court approves referee's rejection of drug addiction as "physical or mental disability" mitigating factor.  [Added 12/15/07]  --  The Florida Bar v. Bloom, 972So.2d 172 (Fla. 2007).
Florida Bar prosecutors absolutely immune from civil liability for actions taken in connection with their official duties, even if actions taken intentionally and maliciously.  [Added 11/24/07]  --  Spano v. Hoffman, 968 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Lawyer suspended for 91 days for failing to disclose to opposing counsel settlement agreement procured by lawyer's client and purportedly signed by opposing counsel's client.  [Added 7/13/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Nicnick, 963 So.2d 219 (Fla. 2007).
For first time, Florida Supreme Court readmits on conditional basis lawyer who resigned for disciplinary reasons.  [Added 6/17/07]  --  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Mark Stephen Barnett, 959 So.2d 234 (Fla. 2007).
"As a matter of policy" Florida Supreme Court orders respondent lawyer to pay Bar's costs of seeking review of referee's recommended discipline, even though respondent did not seek review.  [Added 6/15/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Martinez-Genova, 959 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2007) (opinion on rehearing).
Supreme Court rejects referee's recommendation and imposes reprimand rather than diversion in case involving lawyer's "sharp practice."  [Added 6/9/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Cocalis, 959 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2007).
Supreme Court discusses use of "failure to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct" as aggravating factor in disciplinary cases.  [Added 5/21/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Germain, 957 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2007).
Supreme Court holds that Rule 4-5.6(b) is constitutional, and imposes fee forfeiture and stiff discipline on 2 lawyers who entered undisclosed engagement agreement with clients' adversary.  [Added 5/8/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Rodriguez, 959 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2007); Florida Bar v. St. Louis, 967 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2007).
Rejecting referee's recommendation, Supreme Court suspends rather than disbars lawyer convicted of felonies.  [Added 4/25/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Del Pino, 955 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2007).
Supreme Court suspends lawyer for 90 days, rather than 2 years as recommended by referee, for violating competence and conflict rules.  [Added 4/17/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Maurice, 955 So.2d 535 (Fla. 2007).
Supreme Court disbars lawyer who practiced while suspended.  [Added 2/26/07]  --  The Florida Bar v. Walkden, 950 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2007).
Supreme Court refuses to order lawyer to pay restitution to third party in disciplinary case.  [Added 12/15/06]  --  Florida Bar v. Walton, 952 So.2d 510 (Fla. 2006).
Lawyer's trial conduct leading to trial court's imposition of sanctions results in 91-day suspension by Supreme Court (rather than 10-day recommended suspension).  [Added 11/2/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Tobkin, 944 So.2d 219 (Fla. 2006).
Lawyer who failed to properly supervise employee had requisite "intent" and was found guilty of violating Rule 4-8.4(c) and suspended for 3 years.  [Added 10/6/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Riggs, 944 So.2d 167 (Fla. 2006).
Lawyer's "mere attendance at a courtroom proceeding," without more, not sufficient to support conclusion that lawyer practiced law while suspended.  [Added 10/23/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. D'Ambrosio, 944 So.2d 977 (Fla. 2006).
Suspended lawyer who failed to provide evidence of alcohol and drug rehabilitation denied reinstatement.  [Added 10/20/06]  --  The Florida Bar re: Alan R. Hochman, 944 So.2d 198 (Fla. 2006).
Fourth DCA upholds perjury conviction of lawyer's former employee who filed bar grievance containing untrue statement.  [Added 10/18/06]  --  Rutherford v. State, 939 So.2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Fee refunds may be ordered only under limited circumstances in disciplinary cases, per Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 6/29/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Feige, 937 So.2d 605 (Fla. 2006).
Lawyer suspended for 91 days for "inappropriate courtroom behavior."  [Added 6/26/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Morgan, 938 So.2d 496 (Fla 2006).
Supreme Court warns that it is moving toward stronger sanctions for lawyer misconduct.  [Added 6/8/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Broome, 932 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 2006).
Bar's unexplained delay in prosecuting disciplinary case is factor in Court's decision to impose 2-year, rather than 3-year, suspension.  [Added 2/24/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Wolf, 930 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2006).
Florida denies reinstatement to suspended lawyer who has not been readmitted to bar of his home state.  [Added 2/20/06]  --  The Florida Bar re: Untracht, 923 So.2d 457 (Fla. 2006).
"Managing attorney" for nonlawyer's immigration business suspended for one year for assisting UPL and fee-splitting with nonlawyer.  [Added 1/18/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Abrams, 919 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2006).
90-day suspension for lawyer who acted as counsel of record for disbarred lawyer and thus allowed him to provide legal services for his clients and commit UPL.  [Added 11/28/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Stein, 916 So.2d 774 (Fla. 2005).
Lawyer who practiced law while suspended sanctioned; no willful contempt due to mental health mitigation.  [Added 10/18/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Shoureas, 913 So.2d 554 (Fla. 2005).
Florida Bar grievance committee meetings confidential; respondents may be barred from attending.  [Added 10/18/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Committe, 916 So.2d 741 (Fla. 2005).
Supreme Court declines to revoke lawyer's board certification as disciplinary sanction.  [Added 9/21/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Kavanaugh, 915 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2005).
Misconduct dealing with his law firm nets lawyer 90-day suspension.  [Added 7/12/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Shankman, 908 So.2d 379 (Fla. 2005).
Lawyer's moonlighting and subsequent denial results in loss of job and 30 day suspension from practice.  [Added 6/2/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Kossow, 912 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2005).
ADA does not preclude Supreme Court from disbarring lawyer with serious drug and alcohol addiction.  [Added 3/3/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Gross, 896 So.2d 742 (Fla. 2005).
Lawyer's cessation of conduct that resulted in emergency suspension not valid basis for lifting suspension.  [Added 2/4/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Guerra, 896 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2005).
3-year suspension, not disbarment, appropriate for cases of client neglect short of "abandonment."  [Added 8/23/04]  --  The Florida Bar v. Shoureas, 892 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 2004).
Supreme Court rules that writing single $100 worthless check does not violate disciplinary rules, and declines to order restitution absent improper fees or misappropriation.  [Added 1/22/04]  --  The Florida Bar v. Smith, 866 So.2d 41 (Fla. 2004).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.