Every so often The Florida Bar publishes a list of lawyers recently disciplined by the Florida Supreme Court: a handful disbarred, others suspended or publicly reprimanded. Behind those announcements is a process that gives the state's highest court the final word.
Who is in charge
Under Florida's constitution, the Florida Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission and discipline of lawyers. The Florida Bar, which every practising lawyer in the state must join, acts as the court's arm: it investigates complaints and prosecutes disciplinary cases, but only the court can impose a public sanction.
How a case moves
- Complaint and intake. Anyone can complain to the Bar. Staff screen complaints; many are closed because they do not allege a breach of the rules.
- Grievance committee. Serious matters go to a local grievance committee of lawyers and non-lawyers, which decides whether there is probable cause.
- Referee. If the case proceeds, the Supreme Court appoints a referee, usually a circuit judge, who hears evidence and recommends findings and a sanction.
- Supreme Court. The court reviews the referee's report and issues the final order. Many cases end in consent judgments agreed between the Bar and the lawyer.
Sanctions
The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar provide a ladder of sanctions:
- Admonishment for minor misconduct;
- Public reprimand;
- Probation, often with conditions such as trust-account audits or treatment;
- Suspension, where suspensions of more than 90 days require the lawyer to prove rehabilitation before returning;
- Disbarment, after which a lawyer generally cannot apply for readmission for five years.
Common reasons for serious sanctions include misuse of client trust money, neglecting clients' cases, dishonesty and criminal convictions.
Why the public can see it
Discipline orders are public, and the Bar's website shows each lawyer's disciplinary history. That openness is the point: clients can check a lawyer before hiring them, and the profession shows that it takes complaints seriously. It is also a useful contrast with how intelligence agencies were held to account in the 1980s, as the 2012 Finucane report describes.