Opinion ID: 1101393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: continuing disciplinary jurisdiction

Text: Before reviewing the referee's findings and recommendations in the present case, we take this opportunity to address and clarify the bases of our continuing disciplinary jurisdiction over attorneys who are already under suspension (such as Ross in the present case, see supra note 1); attorneys who have been disbarred; and attorneys who have resigned in the face of disciplinary charges.
Rule 3-5.1(e), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, specifically provides that [d]uring ... suspension the respondent shall continue to be a member of The Florida Bar but without the privilege of practicing. (Emphasis added.) Citing rule 3-5.1(e), this Court in Florida Bar v. Solomon, 589 So.2d 286 (Fla.1991), disbarred an attorney for acts of misconduct committed during the attorney's suspension, holding that [a]lthough under suspension, [the subject attorney] is still a member of The Florida Bar. As such, he is subject to the standards of ethical and professional conduct prescribed by this Court.' Id. at 287 (citation omitted). Thus, despite the fact that an attorney is suspended, he or she remains a member of The Florida Bar and, as such, is subject to the continuing disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court to the same extent as any other member of The Florida Bar. See generally, art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. (The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate ... the discipline of the persons admitted [to the practice of law].). The same is not true of attorneys who have been disbarred or who have resigned in the face of disciplinary charges, as such attorneys are no longer members of The Florida Bar. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1(f) (A judgment of disbarment terminates the respondent's status as a member of the bar.); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1(j) (If accepted by the Supreme Court of Florida, a disciplinary resignation terminates the respondent's status as a member of the bar.).
Chapter 10 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which governs the investigation and prosecution of the unlicensed practice of law, specifically provides that [f]or purposes of this chapter, a nonlawyer or nonattorney is an individual who is not a member of The Florida Bar. This includes, but is not limited to ... disbarred lawyers, and suspended lawyers during the period of suspension. [3] R. Regulating Fla. Bar 10-2.1(b) (emphasis added). Although not explicitly named, this definition of nonlawyer or nonattorney implicitly includes attorneys who have resigned in the face of disciplinary charges. Such resigned attorneys also are not members of The Florida Bar. Accordingly, suspended attorneys, disbarred attorneys, and attorneys who have resigned in the face of disciplinary charges are not members of The Florida Bar under chapter 10, but are instead nonlawyers or nonattorneys subject to the jurisdiction of this Court if they engage in the unlicensed practice of law. [4] While not necessarily referring specifically to chapter 10, this Court has consistently imposed additional discipline upon already-disciplined attorneys for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law during their existing discipline. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Neckman, 616 So.2d 31, 32 (Fla.1993) (publicly reprimanding attorney who had resigned in the face of disciplinary charges, holding that the unauthorized practice of law by one who has resigned the license to practice rather than face disciplinary proceedings is the equivalent of violating a prior disciplinary order of this Court, and that it is proper for discipline to be imposed upon an attorney who has temporarily resigned the license to practice law.); Florida Bar v. Golden, 563 So.2d 81, 81-82 (Fla.1990) (imposing additional suspension upon attorney who violated the terms of his existing suspension, holding that counselling and attempting to assist his client in requesting two continuances [during the subject attorney's period of suspension] constituted the unauthorized practice of law); Florida Bar v. Riccardi, 304 So.2d 444, 445 (Fla. 1974) (finding in contempt and issuing permanent injunction against disbarred attorney due to his unauthorized practice of law after disbarment). See also Florida Bar v. Greene, 589 So.2d 281, 282-83 (Fla.1991) (disbarring attorney for continuing to practice law while suspended, holding that [w]e have found disbarment appropriate in other cases in which attorneys have engaged in the practice of law while suspended).
Orders from this Court suspending an attorney, disbarring an attorney, or accepting an attorney's disciplinary resignation typically contain language to the effect that the subject attorney shall accept no new business from the date this order is filed. Such orders may also impose additional restrictions or conditions related to the discipline at issue. If an attorney subject to such a disciplinary order violates same, he or she stands in contempt of this Court's order. See generally Black's Law Dictionary 319 (6th ed. 1990) (defining contempt of court as being committed by one who, being under the court's authority as a party to a proceeding therein, willfully disobeys its lawful orders). In addition to this Court's inherent contempt powers, [5] rule 3-7.11(f), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, specifically provides in pertinent part that a respondent in a disciplinary proceeding may be cited for contempt by petition for an order to show cause filed and heard in the Supreme Court of Florida. Thus, suspended attorneys, disbarred attorneys, and attorneys who have resigned in the face of disciplinary charges are all subject to the continuing jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of the respective orders under which they were disciplined. See Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 8.0 (Prior Discipline Orders) (specifically listing sanctions [that] are generally appropriate in cases involving prior discipline). [6] This Court has consistently imposed additional discipline upon already-disciplined attorneys for violating the terms of existing disciplinary orders. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Neely, 675 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla.1996) (permanently disbarring already disbarred attorney for violating this Court's disbarment order by continuing to practice law after he was disbarred); Florida Bar v. Hawkins, 643 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1994) (holding in contempt and disbarring attorney for violating the terms of her disciplinary resignation by failing to, among other things, submit an affidavit swearing that she had provided each of her clients a copy of the resignation order or notify her clients where to pick up their files; holding that [i]n light of [the subject attorney's] clear violation of our order allowing her to resign from the Bar and her apparent attempt to avoid service in this matter, we agree that disbarment is warranted); Florida Bar v. Brown, 635 So.2d 13, 13-14 (Fla.1994) (holding in contempt and disbarring attorney for violating the terms of his disciplinary resignation by continuing to practice law after disciplinary resignation; holding that [c]lear violation of any order or disciplinary status that denies an attorney the license to practice law generally is punishable by disbarment, absent strong extenuating factors). See also Florida Bar v. Simring, 612 So.2d 561, 570-71 (Fla.1993); Florida Bar v. Bouman, 558 So.2d 994, 994 (Fla.1990); Florida Bar v. Winter, 549 So.2d 188, 189 (Fla.1989).