Two District Courts of Appeal criticize the professionalism of counsel in mortgage foreclosure cases.  [Added 12/29/11]

    Second DCA.  The Second DCA reversed a summary judgment that included relief that the party "neither sought in its motion or requested at the summary judgment hearing."  The appeals court criticized the conduct of trial counsel, stating:  "[W]e we cannot condone the actions of Gulf View's counsel in including relief in a proposed final judgment that it did not request in its motion or at the hearing."  (In a footnote, the court pointed out that "[w]hile members of the same firm, appellate counsel was different from trial counsel").  Land Development Services, Inc. v. Gulf View Townhomes, LLC, __ So.3d ___, 36 Fla.L.Weekly D2764 (Fla. 2d DCA, No. 2D10-6014, 12/21/2011), 2011 WL 6376125.

    Fourth DCA.  Defendant appealed to the Fourth DCA a non-final order denying her motion to vacate an amended summary judgment of foreclosure.  The appeals court found no merit in Defendant's claims.  The court criticized the conduct of her counsel and cautioned other lawyers:  "We remind counsel of their ethical obligation to know the legal precedent of this Court and to base their legal arguments on that precedent.  Where counsel fails to do so and the result is an appeal that is so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable, we will not hesitate to impose sanctions pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) (2011) and section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2011).  See Sullivan v. Sullivan, 54 So.3d 520, 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ('Section 57.105 permits an appellate court to impose appellate attorney’s fees for conduct on appeal.') (citation omitted).  This appeal comes mighty close to that point.  See Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2005) ('[A]llowing appellate courts to impose sanctions . . . will not chill representation, but instead will emphasize that counsels’ obligations as officers of the court override their obligations to zealously represent their clients.').  Vilvar v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, __ So.3d ___, 36 Fla.L.Weekly D2779 (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D11-457, 12/21/2011), 2011 WL 6373035.

Dissenting opinion in Third DCA case criticizes counsel and trial court for alleged ex parte communication as to merits of case.  [Added 10/26/11]

    The Third DCA affirmed a judgment for Bank in a foreclosure case.  One judge vigorously dissented, stating:  "I dissent because I cannot condone the unprofessional and unethical means used by the bank’s counsel, with the trial court’s complicity, to obtain an amended final judgment in this case.  Counsel for Centennial Bank admitted at oral argument that the amended final judgment, which more than doubled the amount of the deficiency judgment, was obtained after an ex parte communication with the judge’s chambers.  Either the judge or her staff then advised counsel on how to proceed.  Not only was it improper for the trial court to give legal advice, but the advice was wrong – directing counsel to send a letter with a proposed amended final judgment, rather than to file a motion seeking appropriate relief.  This was then followed by another ex parte communication – a letter from the bank’s counsel to the judge, that then resulted in a new final judgment two and half times larger than the previous final judgment.  The bank did not even send a copy of the letter to the appellant.  Incredibly, the majority of this panel is willing to condone and reward such behavior."  Phillips v. Centennial Bank, __ So.3d ___, 36 Fla.L.Weekly D2316 (Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D10-2910, 10/19/2011), 2011 WL 4949994.

Florida Supreme Court amends the Oath of Admission to the Bar to stress civility.  [Added 9/14/11]

    The Florida Supreme Court "revise[d] the Oath of Attorney administered to new members of The Florida Bar to recognize '[t]he necessity for civility in the inherently contentious setting of the adversary process.'  In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 647 (1985)."  (Footnote omitted.)  The Court noted that the Code of Professionalism of the American Board of Trial Advocates and the Lawyer's Oath taken by admittees to the South Carolina Bar address this issue.

    Effective immediately, the revised Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar provides:

    I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone’s cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."  In re: Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar, 73 So.3d 149 (Fla. 2011).

Third DCA criticizes what it euphemistically calls "candor" and "courage" of insurer and its counsel.  [Added 8/19/11]

    Plaintiff was successful in a county court action against an insurer regarding a PIP (personal injury protection) claim.  The circuit affirmed but denied Plaintiff's claim for appellate attorney's fees.  Plaintiff sought certiorari review of the order denying fees.

    The Third DCA granted the petition for certiorari because the denial of fees was "directly contrary to the mandatory, non-discretionary requirements of law as required by" Fla.Stat. sec. 627.428.

    The appeals court also took the opportunity to criticize the conduct of the insurance company's counsel.  Counsel apparently stated with what the court pointedly referred to as "candor" that if Petitioner's lawyer had contacted the insurer's counsel directly before filing the certiorari petition, the insurer likely would have agreed to a motion for rehearing "because the denial of his appellate attorney's fees was legally erroneous."  Instead, however, the insurer fought the petition.  The court then remarked that the insurer had what it called the "courage" to "contend that, having sought judicial, rather than telephonic relief, by filing this completely appropriate petition, the [Petitioner] is out of luck."

    In a footnote, the court stated the following regarding its reference to the "candor" and "courage" of insurer and its counsel:  "The reader, if any, is invited to substitute her own preferred equivalent expression.  See, e.g., Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 509 n.14 (Fla. 2006) (chutzpah); Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So.2d 1195, 1197 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (same); Price v. Gray's Guard Service, Inc., 298 So.2d 461, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (intestinal fortitude)."  Ramirez v. United Auto Ins. Co., 67 So.3d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Fifth DCA reverses verdict due to improper argument, and urges professionalism on retrial.  [Added 8/12/11]

    City appealed a wrongful death verdict won by the estate of a man killed by a car involved in a high-speed police chase.  City argued that reversal was warranted due to, inter alia, "numerous improper closing arguments of [plaintiff]'s counsel."  The appellate court agreed and reversed, carefully analyzing the objected-to and unobjected-to portions of the closing argument in its opinion.

    The Fifth DCA summarized:  "[W]e reverse the final judgment based on the inflammatory and prejudicial comment regarding the hypothetical scene the jurors would face post-trial if they did not find in [plaintiff]’s favor.  In addition, we conclude that the cumulative effect of the objected-to improper comments, as discussed above, acted in concert to deprive the City of a fair trial.  Werneck [v. Worall, 918 So.2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)]; Bocher [v. Glass, 874 So.2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)].  Such comments cannot be condoned, and we urge vigilant adherence, on retrial, to professional standards during closing argument."  City of Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Fourth DCA criticizes prosecutor's closing argument as a "checklist" of improper argument.  [Added 8/4/11]

    The Fourth DCA reversed a criminal conviction based on the trial court's failure to inquire into a situation that suggested juror bias.  At the conclusion of its opinion, the court criticized the prosecutor's closing argument.  "Because we reverse the conviction and sentence for a new trial, we feel it necessary to comment on the prosecutor’s closing argument, which was also raised by appellant as a ground for reversal.  While some of the prosecutor’s remarks may have been a fair reply to defense counsel’s arguments, the prosecutor’s closing argument was replete with improper comments which offered her opinion as to appellant’s guilt, shifted the burden of proof, appealed to sympathy for the accuser, vouched for the accuser’s credibility, and invited the jury to base its verdict on which witness the jury thought was most credible.  In short, the prosecutor’s closing argument reads like a checklist of nearly every form of improper argument under Florida case law.  Were we not reversing for a new trial on the jury issue, we may have concluded that the argument was so flawed as to constitute fundamental error."  Roberts v. State, 66 So.3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

In unusual case, Third DCA sanctions debtors and their counsel for abusing the legal process in a mortgage foreclosure case.  [Added 6/28/11]  --  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Hernandez, __ So.3d ___, 36 Fla.L.Weekly D1328 (Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D10-1099, 6/22/2011), 2011 WL 2499641.

Lawyer who tried to buy life insurance policy without insurable interest is referred by 5th DCA to Florida Bar.  [Added 5/15/11]  --  TTSI Irrevocable Trust v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., 60 So.3d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Fourth DCA criticizes lawyer for an "egregiously false" statement in reply brief.  [Added 5/2/11]  --  Pamphile v. State, 65 So.3d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Fourth DCA reverses judgment and criticizes "gotcha" tactics of insurer's defense counsel.  [Added 4/28/11]  --  Central Square Tarragon LLC v. Great Divide Ins. Co., __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D09-4795, 7/6/2011) (on rehearing).

First DCA affirms grant of new trial due to improper argument by defense counsel.  [Added 4/20/11]  --  Linzy v. Rayburn, 58 So.3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Third DCA criticizes counsel's use of discovery in insurance dispute as an attention-getting device.  [Added 3/15/11]  --  General Star Indemnity Co. v. Atlantic Hospitality of Florida, LLC, 57 So.3d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Court erred in not awarding 57.105 fees against bank in dismissed mortgage foreclosure case; lawyers' professionalism criticized.  [Added 2/28/11]  --  South Bay Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 53 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

    NOTE:  For another foreclosure case in which the conduct of counsel was criticized, see Jade Winds Ass'n, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 63 So.3d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Florida Supreme Court disbars rather than suspends lawyer who practiced while suspended, with 3 concurring justices criticizing conduct of Bar prosecutor.  [Added 2/5/11]  --  Florida Bar v. Lobasz, 64 So.3d 1167 (Fla. 2011).

Fifth DCA orders lawyer to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for filing improper motion for rehearing.  [Added 1/15/11]  --  Marion v. Orlando Pain & Medical Rehabilitation, 67 So.3d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Fifth DCA criticizes lawyer for filing appeal relating to plea process that he participated in without objection.  [Added 12/17/10]  --  Barreto v. State, 50 So.3d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

Florida Supreme Court adds to list of subjects that may be tested on Florida bar examination.  [Added 12/10/10]  --  In re: Amendments to Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, 51 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 2010).

Court makes UPL observation and disciplinary referral to Florida Bar in appellate opinion.  [Added 11/29/10]  --  Opella v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 48 So.3d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Fourth DCA urges Supreme Court to allow trial courts to sanction attorneys for reckless misconduct, not just bad faith.  [Added 11/5/10]  --  Rivero v. Meister, 46 So.3d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Third DCA reverses substantial verdict based on improper argument by plaintiff's counsel.  [Added 9/1/10]  --  Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Fourth DCA criticizes lawyers for failure to comply with candor-toward-the-tribunal rule.  [Added 8/31/10]  --  Dept. of Children and Families v. D.B.D., 42 So.3d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D09-4862, 8/25/2010).

Fourth DCA reverses criminal conviction due to prosecutor's improper closing argument.  [Added 8/19/10]  --  Wicklow v. State, 43 So.3d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Third DCA reverses another substantial verdict due to improper argument by same lawyer.  [Added 8/16/10]  --  Chin v. Caiaffa, 42 So.3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D08-176, 8/4/2010).

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).

First DCA cautions criminal defense lawyer against repeatedly raising "non-meritorious" arguments court has rejected before.  [Added 6/23/10]  --  Williams v. State, 45 So.3d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Concurring opinion from Fifth DCA criticizes prosecutor's actions and attitude in connection with improper closing argument.  [Added 6/23/10]  --  Lumpkin v. State, 36 So.3d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

Third DCA criticizes law firm's actions but rules that firm is protected by litigation immunity.  [Added 3/22/10]  --  Fernandez v. Haber & Ganguzza, LLP, 30 So.3d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

First DCA imposes 57.105 fees against party and his lawyer who sought certiorari review after unsworn motion to disqualify JCC was denied.  [Added 3/5/10]  --  Skarka v. Lennar Homes, Inc./Broadspire, 29 So.3d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Civil theft judgment against lawyer who left law firm and took clients with him is reversed, despite conduct called "loathsome" by DCA.  [Added 2/10/10]  --  Winters v. Mulholland, 33 So.3d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Conflict rule governing concurrent representation of clients (RPC 4-1.7) does not permit analysis of whether conflict is "material."  [Added 1/14/10]  --  Lincoln Associates & Construction, Inc. v. Wentworth Construction Co., Inc., 26 So.3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Fourth DCA comments critically on lawyers' professionalism in filing "emergency" motions.  [Added 10/23/09]  --  USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. Pembroke Pines MRI, Inc., 24 So.3d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Trial notice is not "a hunting license" to engage in unprofessional behavior, Fifth DCA judge warns.  [Added 9/22/09]  --  Allen v. State, 17 So.3d 897 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Florida Supreme Court again criticizes prosecutor's closing argument, but it did not rise to level of fundamental error.  [Added 9/1/09]  --  Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17 (Fla. 2009).

First DCA imposes appellate attorney's fees against party and her lawyer as sanction under F.S. 57.105.  [Added 7/15/09]  --  Long v. AvMed, 14 So.3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Court may individually assess personal representative for attorney's fees resulting from frivolous litigation, even absent bad faith finding.  [Added 6/21/09]  --  Geary v. Butzel Long, P.C., 13 So.3d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Criminal conviction reversed due to prosecution's improper closing argument.  [Added 6/16/09]  --  Fleurimond v. State, 10 So.3d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Despite improper argument that one judge called "outrageous," Third DCA affirms criminal conviction.  [Added 4/28/09]  --  Williams v. State, 10 So.3d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Although criticizing lawyer's conduct as "reprehensible," First DCA reverses section 57.105 attorney's fees sanction.  [Added 4/7/09]  --  Campbell v. Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, 9 So.3d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Two DCAs criticize professional conduct of lawyers practicing before them.  [Added 12/16/08]  --  Hernandez v. Gil, 998 So.2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (meritless arguments; knowing when to decline representation or to contact Center for Professionalism or ethics hotline); R.E. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 996 So.2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (filing brief "without a single citation to the record").

Fourth DCA affirms order sanctioning lawyer for bad-faith litigation conduct.  [Added 11/29/08]  --  Shniderman v. Fitness Innovations and Technologies, Inc., 994 So.2d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Third DCA judge criticizes professionalism of lawyer defending negligence case.  [Added 11/12/08]  --  Gold v. West Flagler Associates, Ltd., 997 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Third DCA reverses dismissal of case that was imposed as sanction for actions of plaintiff's lawyer.  [Added 9/9/08]  --  Burgess v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Contempt fine against lawyer for failing to appear at hearing is reversed.  [Added 8/29/08]  --  In re: Matter of Steffens, 988 So.2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Jury verdict is reversed due to counsel's statement during voir dire that he was a "consumer justice attorney" representing an individual rather than a "fancy company."  [Added 8/26/08]  --  Hollenbeck v. Hooks, 993 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

F.S. 57.105 attorney's fees assessed against lawyer and clients for filing disqualification motion as "litigation tactic."  [Added 8/13/08]  --  Yang Enterprises, Inc. v. Georgalis, 988 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Expressing skepticism regarding some motions to dismiss alleging fraud on the court, Fifth DCA reverses dismissal order entered without evidentiary hearing.  [Added 7/8/08]  --  Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So.2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Lawyer who failed to appear at court-ordered mediation is sanctioned by court and referred to Florida Bar.  [Added 6/18/08]  --  Mojzisik v. Estrada, 983 So.2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Fourth DCA is critical of criminal defense counsel's argument concerning state's conduct.  [Added 6/18/08]  --  State v. Martin, 982 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Lawyer's conduct before judge is criticized, but finding that lawyer was guilty of direct criminal contempt is reversed.  [Added 5/13/08]  --  Wiggs v. State, 981 So.2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Lawyer ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing improper motion for rehearing and clarification.  [Added 5/5/08]  --  Ayala v. Gonzalez, 984 So.2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Trial court's order granting summary judgment is reversed due to "incompetence" of party's original lawyer.  [Added 4/8/08]  --  Olesh v. Greenberg, 978 So.2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Verdict for slip-and-fall plaintiff is reversed due to "improper and unprofessional" argument and trial conduct by plaintiff's counsel.  [Added 2/19/08]  --  SDG Dadeland Associates, Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So.2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Fifth DCA criticizes conduct of lawyers involved in placing irrelevant, prejudicial evidence before jury.  [Added 1/10/08]  --  Williams v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 973 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

First DCA imposes attorney's fees under Fla.Stat. sec. 61.16(1) against appellant for filing frivolous appeal in domestic relations matter.  [Added 11/30/07]  --  Lahodik v. Lahodik, 969 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Questioned fee arrangement does not result in reversal of conviction, but defense counsel's handling of murder weapon does.  [Added 11/14/07]  --  Alessi v. State, 969 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA, 2007).

Lawyer has no legal duty to stop someone from illegally taping conversation, but could face liability for disclosing or using tape.  [Added 10/29/07]  --  Horning-Keating v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 969 So.2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).   NOTE:  See also Dreggors v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, ___ So.2d ___, 32 Fla.L.Weekly D2727 (Fla. 5th DCA, Nos. 5D05-4047, 5D05-4048, 5D05-4049, 5D05-4050, 5D06-620, 5D06-621, 5D06-622, 5D06-623, 11/16/2007), 2007 WL 3390888.

"Highly improper, unprofessional argument" results in reversal of criminal conviction.  [Added 9/20/07]  --  Chavers v. State, 964 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Fifth DCA chastises lawyer who filed motion for rehearing on the basis that she did not understand reason for court's per curiam affirmance.  [Added 8/24/07]  --  Lowry v. State, 963 So.2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Second DCA reminds lawyers to present facts and law "in an accurate and forthright manner."  [Added 6/14/07]  --  Brown v. State, 958 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Lawyer commended for candor in seeking amount of fees orally agreed to rather than amount provided in written co-counsel contract  [Added 4/6/07]  --  Jay v. Trazenfeld, 952 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Trial court abused discretion by denying motion for new trial based on non-disclosure by juror (who happened to be a lawyer) of her personal litigation history.  [Added 4/4/07]  --  Pereda v. Parajon, 957 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Judge did not err by allowing jurors to continue deliberations until after midnight over defense counsel's objection; lawyers criticized for unrealistic assessment of time required.  [3/15/07]  --  Green v. State, 951 So.2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Fifth DCA cautions against "patently overbroad" discovery requests and urges lawyers to work together to "reasonably narrow" disputed discovery issues.  [Added 1/23/07]  --  Life Care Centers of America v. Reese, 948 So.2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

"Offensive remarks" and accusations contained in appellate briefs lead to award of Fla.Stat. sec. 57.105 attorney's fees against lawyer.  [9/18/06]  --  Thomas v. Patton, 939 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Lawyer commended for professionalism in candidly accepting blame for conduct leading to imposition of sanctions.  [Added 5/8/06]  --  Doorstep Beverages of Longwood, Inc. v. Collier, 928 So.2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (on rehearing).

In appropriate case, appellee or its counsel may be sanctioned by appellate court for defending "indefensible" order of trial court.  [Added 7/29/05]  --  Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2005).

Fourth DCA criticizes lawyers' professionalism in 2 unrelated cases.  [Added 6/10/2005]  --  Giron v. Fairways of Sunrise Homeowners' Association, Inc., 903 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Siegel v. Boca Chase Property Owners' Association, Inc., 904 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).