The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell
Headline: Florida Supreme Court suspends attorney for 91 days over client fund issues
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Florida attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell suspended for 91 days for misappropriating client funds and communication failures, with disbarment deemed unwarranted.
- Always document your communications with your attorney.
- Understand how your attorney is handling your retainer funds (e.g., trust account).
- If you suspect ethical violations, file a complaint with The Florida Bar.
Case Summary
The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell, decided by Florida Supreme Court on May 15, 2025, resulted in a mixed outcome. The Florida Bar sought to disbar attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell for alleged misconduct, including misappropriation of client funds and failure to communicate. The referee found that Mitchell had committed several ethical violations but recommended a suspension rather than disbarment. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the referee's findings and recommendations, ultimately deciding to suspend Mitchell's law license for 91 days, finding that while his actions were serious, disbarment was not warranted under the circumstances. The court held: The court held that attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1 (competent representation), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.15(b)(1) (safeguarding client property), 5-1.1 (trust accounts), and 5-1.2 (trust account requirements) due to his mishandling of client funds and lack of communication.. The court held that while Mitchell's actions constituted serious ethical breaches, including misappropriation of client funds, disbarment was not the appropriate sanction given the specific facts and mitigating factors presented.. The court held that a 91-day suspension was a sufficient sanction to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, balancing the severity of the misconduct with Mitchell's remorse and efforts to rectify his mistakes.. The court held that the referee's findings of fact were supported by competent substantial evidence, but modified the recommended discipline from disbarment to a 91-day suspension.. The court held that the attorney's failure to maintain proper trust account records and commingling of client funds with personal funds were significant violations requiring disciplinary action.. This case underscores the Florida Supreme Court's approach to attorney discipline, balancing the need for strict adherence to ethical rules, particularly concerning client funds, with consideration for mitigating factors. It serves as a reminder to attorneys about the critical importance of proper trust account management and client communication, while also indicating that disbarment is not automatic for all instances of fund mismanagement.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
An attorney, Ryan F. C. Mitchell, was disciplined by the Florida Supreme Court for mishandling client money and not communicating properly. While the court found his actions serious enough to warrant a suspension, it decided against disbarment. Mitchell's law license was suspended for 91 days, and he must complete ethics training and pay court costs.
For Legal Practitioners
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a referee's recommendation for discipline against attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell. Despite findings of misappropriation of client funds and communication failures, the Court imposed a 91-day suspension, not disbarment, considering mitigating factors like lack of prior discipline and remorse. The decision underscores the Court's de novo review of recommended discipline and its balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors.
For Law Students
In The Florida Bar v. Mitchell, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed a referee's findings regarding attorney misconduct, specifically misappropriation of client funds and communication failures. The Court applied a de novo standard to the recommended discipline, ultimately imposing a 91-day suspension, finding disbarment unwarranted due to mitigating factors such as the attorney's remorse and lack of prior disciplinary history.
Newsroom Summary
Florida attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell has had his law license suspended for 91 days by the Florida Supreme Court. The court found Mitchell committed serious ethical violations, including mishandling client funds, but opted for suspension over disbarment, citing mitigating factors. Mitchell must also complete ethics training.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1 (competent representation), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.15(b)(1) (safeguarding client property), 5-1.1 (trust accounts), and 5-1.2 (trust account requirements) due to his mishandling of client funds and lack of communication.
- The court held that while Mitchell's actions constituted serious ethical breaches, including misappropriation of client funds, disbarment was not the appropriate sanction given the specific facts and mitigating factors presented.
- The court held that a 91-day suspension was a sufficient sanction to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, balancing the severity of the misconduct with Mitchell's remorse and efforts to rectify his mistakes.
- The court held that the referee's findings of fact were supported by competent substantial evidence, but modified the recommended discipline from disbarment to a 91-day suspension.
- The court held that the attorney's failure to maintain proper trust account records and commingling of client funds with personal funds were significant violations requiring disciplinary action.
Key Takeaways
- Always document your communications with your attorney.
- Understand how your attorney is handling your retainer funds (e.g., trust account).
- If you suspect ethical violations, file a complaint with The Florida Bar.
- Attorneys must maintain clear records of client funds and communicate diligently.
- Mitigating factors can influence disciplinary outcomes, but serious violations still carry penalties.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
The Florida Supreme Court reviews a referee's findings of fact and recommendations for discipline using a de novo standard for legal conclusions and a deferential standard for factual findings, though the referee's findings are presumed correct unless clearly erroneous. The Court stated, "We accord the referee's findings of fact the weight of the findings of a trial court, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the referee as to the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses." The Court reviews the referee's recommended discipline de novo.
Procedural Posture
This case reached the Florida Supreme Court on a petition for review of a referee's report recommending discipline for attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell. The Florida Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mitchell, alleging ethical violations. The referee found Mitchell guilty of certain violations but recommended a suspension, and the Bar sought review of this recommendation.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof in a Florida Bar disciplinary proceeding rests with the Bar, which must prove ethical violations by clear and convincing evidence. The referee's findings are presumed correct unless clearly erroneous, and the Florida Supreme Court reviews the recommended discipline de novo.
Legal Tests Applied
Misappropriation of Client Funds
Elements: Intentional or knowing use of client funds for the attorney's own benefit. · Failure to maintain client funds in a trust account. · Lack of authorization from the client for the use of funds.
The referee found that Mitchell had misappropriated client funds by using funds from his trust account for personal expenses without authorization. The Court agreed that this constituted a serious ethical violation, though it ultimately found disbarment unwarranted.
Failure to Communicate
Elements: Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter. · Failure to promptly respond to reasonable requests for information from the client.
The referee found that Mitchell had failed to communicate with his clients, including failing to respond to their inquiries. The Court acknowledged this as a violation of ethical duties.
Mitigating Factors in Discipline
Elements: Absence of a prior disciplinary record. · Absence of dishonest or selfish motive. · Absence of a pattern of misconduct. · Remorse for actions. · Cooperation with disciplinary authorities.
The Court considered several mitigating factors, including Mitchell's lack of a prior disciplinary record, his remorse, and his cooperation with the Bar's investigation, in determining that suspension was more appropriate than disbarment.
Statutory References
| Rule 4-1.15, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar | Safekeeping Property — This rule governs the handling of client funds and property, including trust accounts. Violations of this rule, such as misappropriation, were central to the allegations against Mitchell. |
| Rule 4-1.4, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar | Communication — This rule requires attorneys to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and to promptly respond to reasonable requests for information. Mitchell's failure to communicate violated this rule. |
| Rule 4-8.4(a), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar | Misconduct — This rule prohibits a lawyer from knowingly assisting or inducing another to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. While not directly cited as the primary violation, the underlying actions constituted misconduct. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"The referee's findings of fact are presumed correct unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by competent substantial evidence."
"We accord the referee's findings of fact the weight of the findings of a trial court, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the referee as to the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses."
"While we agree that Mitchell committed serious ethical violations, we find that disbarment is not warranted under the facts of this case."
"The purpose of attorney discipline is not to punish the lawyer, but to protect the public, to maintain public confidence in the legal profession, and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct."
Remedies
Suspension of law license for 91 days.Requirement to attend the Florida Bar's Ethics School.Requirement to pay costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Always document your communications with your attorney.
- Understand how your attorney is handling your retainer funds (e.g., trust account).
- If you suspect ethical violations, file a complaint with The Florida Bar.
- Attorneys must maintain clear records of client funds and communicate diligently.
- Mitigating factors can influence disciplinary outcomes, but serious violations still carry penalties.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You hired an attorney who took your retainer but then stopped responding to your calls and emails, and you suspect they might be using your retainer funds for personal expenses.
Your Rights: You have the right to expect your attorney to communicate with you about your case and to safeguard your funds. You have the right to file a complaint with The Florida Bar if you believe your attorney has engaged in misconduct.
What To Do: Document all attempts to contact your attorney. If you suspect misappropriation, gather any financial records you have. File a formal complaint with The Florida Bar detailing the attorney's actions and providing supporting evidence.
Scenario: You are an attorney facing disciplinary action for mishandling client funds and are concerned about the potential penalty.
Your Rights: You have the right to a fair disciplinary process, including the opportunity to present evidence and arguments in mitigation. You have the right to have the Florida Supreme Court review the referee's recommendations.
What To Do: Cooperate with the disciplinary process, present any mitigating factors (e.g., remorse, lack of prior discipline, cooperation), and be prepared to argue why the recommended discipline is not appropriate based on the specific facts and applicable rules.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for my lawyer to use my retainer money before doing any work?
No, it is generally not legal or ethical for a lawyer to use your retainer money for personal expenses before earning it or without proper accounting. Retainer funds should typically be held in a trust account and only withdrawn as earned, with proper notification.
This applies to attorneys licensed in Florida, governed by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Can my lawyer ignore my calls and emails?
No, lawyers have an ethical duty to communicate with their clients. They must keep you reasonably informed about your case and promptly respond to reasonable requests for information.
This applies to attorneys licensed in Florida, governed by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Practical Implications
For Clients of attorneys in Florida
This ruling reinforces that attorneys must diligently safeguard client funds and maintain open communication. While severe misconduct can lead to disbarment, the court may consider mitigating factors for less severe or isolated incidents, resulting in suspension rather than permanent loss of license.
For Attorneys in Florida
The decision serves as a reminder of the strict ethical obligations regarding client funds and communication. Attorneys facing disciplinary proceedings should be aware that while mitigating factors can influence the outcome, serious violations like misappropriation carry significant consequences, including potential suspension.
Related Legal Concepts
The branch of moral principles that govern the practice of law and the conduct o... Trust Accounts
Special bank accounts where lawyers hold client funds separate from their own bu... Attorney Discipline
The process by which a bar association or court investigates and sanctions attor... Client Funds Misappropriation
The wrongful taking or using of money or property belonging to a client by an at...
Frequently Asked Questions (36)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (9)
Q: What is The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell about?
The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell is a case decided by Florida Supreme Court on May 15, 2025.
Q: What court decided The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell?
The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell was decided by the Florida Supreme Court, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell decided?
The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell was decided on May 15, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell?
The citation for The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is the purpose of attorney discipline?
The purpose is not primarily to punish the lawyer, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the legal profession, and deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.
Q: Who is Ryan F. C. Mitchell?
Ryan F. C. Mitchell is a Florida-licensed attorney who faced disciplinary action from The Florida Bar for ethical violations, including misappropriation of client funds.
Q: What court decided this case?
The Florida Supreme Court decided this case, reviewing the referee's findings and recommendations regarding attorney discipline.
Q: What are the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar?
These are the rules of professional conduct that all attorneys in Florida must follow, covering areas like client funds, communication, conflicts of interest, and advertising.
Q: Does this ruling mean lawyers can't be disbarred for mistakes?
No, disbarment is still a possible and severe penalty for serious ethical violations. However, the court considers mitigating factors, meaning not every violation automatically results in disbarment.
Legal Analysis (15)
Q: Is The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell published?
The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell?
The court issued a mixed ruling in The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell. Key holdings: The court held that attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1 (competent representation), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.15(b)(1) (safeguarding client property), 5-1.1 (trust accounts), and 5-1.2 (trust account requirements) due to his mishandling of client funds and lack of communication.; The court held that while Mitchell's actions constituted serious ethical breaches, including misappropriation of client funds, disbarment was not the appropriate sanction given the specific facts and mitigating factors presented.; The court held that a 91-day suspension was a sufficient sanction to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, balancing the severity of the misconduct with Mitchell's remorse and efforts to rectify his mistakes.; The court held that the referee's findings of fact were supported by competent substantial evidence, but modified the recommended discipline from disbarment to a 91-day suspension.; The court held that the attorney's failure to maintain proper trust account records and commingling of client funds with personal funds were significant violations requiring disciplinary action..
Q: Why is The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell important?
The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell has an impact score of 30/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case underscores the Florida Supreme Court's approach to attorney discipline, balancing the need for strict adherence to ethical rules, particularly concerning client funds, with consideration for mitigating factors. It serves as a reminder to attorneys about the critical importance of proper trust account management and client communication, while also indicating that disbarment is not automatic for all instances of fund mismanagement.
Q: What precedent does The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell set?
The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1 (competent representation), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.15(b)(1) (safeguarding client property), 5-1.1 (trust accounts), and 5-1.2 (trust account requirements) due to his mishandling of client funds and lack of communication. (2) The court held that while Mitchell's actions constituted serious ethical breaches, including misappropriation of client funds, disbarment was not the appropriate sanction given the specific facts and mitigating factors presented. (3) The court held that a 91-day suspension was a sufficient sanction to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, balancing the severity of the misconduct with Mitchell's remorse and efforts to rectify his mistakes. (4) The court held that the referee's findings of fact were supported by competent substantial evidence, but modified the recommended discipline from disbarment to a 91-day suspension. (5) The court held that the attorney's failure to maintain proper trust account records and commingling of client funds with personal funds were significant violations requiring disciplinary action.
Q: What are the key holdings in The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell?
1. The court held that attorney Ryan F. C. Mitchell violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1 (competent representation), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.15(b)(1) (safeguarding client property), 5-1.1 (trust accounts), and 5-1.2 (trust account requirements) due to his mishandling of client funds and lack of communication. 2. The court held that while Mitchell's actions constituted serious ethical breaches, including misappropriation of client funds, disbarment was not the appropriate sanction given the specific facts and mitigating factors presented. 3. The court held that a 91-day suspension was a sufficient sanction to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, balancing the severity of the misconduct with Mitchell's remorse and efforts to rectify his mistakes. 4. The court held that the referee's findings of fact were supported by competent substantial evidence, but modified the recommended discipline from disbarment to a 91-day suspension. 5. The court held that the attorney's failure to maintain proper trust account records and commingling of client funds with personal funds were significant violations requiring disciplinary action.
Q: What cases are related to The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell?
Precedent cases cited or related to The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell: The Florida Bar v. Thomas, 960 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2007); The Florida Bar v. Valentine, 957 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2007); The Florida Bar v. Condon, 910 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2005).
Q: What was Ryan F. C. Mitchell accused of?
Ryan F. C. Mitchell was accused of serious ethical violations, including misappropriation of client funds and failure to communicate with his clients. These actions are governed by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Q: What is the standard of review for attorney discipline cases in Florida?
The Florida Supreme Court reviews a referee's findings of fact with deference, but reviews the recommended discipline de novo, meaning they consider it anew without giving deference to the referee's legal conclusions.
Q: Did the Florida Supreme Court disbar Ryan F. C. Mitchell?
No, the Florida Supreme Court did not disbar Ryan F. C. Mitchell. Although the referee found ethical violations, the Court ultimately decided that a suspension was more appropriate than disbarment.
Q: What discipline did Ryan F. C. Mitchell receive?
Ryan F. C. Mitchell received a suspension of his law license for 91 days. He was also ordered to attend Florida Bar Ethics School and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
Q: Why wasn't disbarment ordered for misappropriating client funds?
The Court considered mitigating factors, such as Mitchell's lack of a prior disciplinary record, his remorse for his actions, and his cooperation with the disciplinary process, which led them to conclude disbarment was not warranted in this specific case.
Q: What does 'misappropriation of client funds' mean?
Misappropriation means an attorney improperly uses or takes client funds that are held in trust for the client, without authorization. This is a serious ethical violation.
Q: What is the burden of proof in Florida Bar disciplinary cases?
The Florida Bar has the burden to prove ethical violations by clear and convincing evidence. The referee's factual findings are presumed correct unless clearly erroneous.
Q: What is 'de novo' review?
De novo review means the appellate court reviews the legal issues from scratch, without giving deference to the lower court's or referee's legal conclusions.
Q: What is 'clear and convincing evidence'?
This is a high standard of proof, meaning the evidence must show that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. It's higher than 'preponderance of the evidence' but lower than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell affect me?
This case underscores the Florida Supreme Court's approach to attorney discipline, balancing the need for strict adherence to ethical rules, particularly concerning client funds, with consideration for mitigating factors. It serves as a reminder to attorneys about the critical importance of proper trust account management and client communication, while also indicating that disbarment is not automatic for all instances of fund mismanagement. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What happens if my lawyer doesn't communicate with me?
Attorneys have a duty to keep clients reasonably informed about their case and respond promptly to requests for information. Failure to do so is an ethical violation, and you can file a complaint with The Florida Bar.
Q: How can I file a complaint against an attorney in Florida?
You can file a complaint with The Florida Bar. They have a process for investigating allegations of attorney misconduct, and you should provide as much detail and evidence as possible.
Q: What should I do if I suspect my lawyer is mishandling my money?
Gather all relevant documents and communications. Contact The Florida Bar immediately to report your concerns. Do not delay, as prompt action is crucial.
Q: Are there any requirements for attorneys after a suspension?
Yes, in this case, Ryan F. C. Mitchell was required to attend the Florida Bar's Ethics School and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, in addition to serving his 91-day suspension.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell?
The docket number for The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell is SC2023-0869. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is a 'referee' in attorney discipline cases?
A referee is appointed by the Florida Supreme Court to hear disciplinary cases, take evidence, make findings of fact, and recommend discipline to the Court.
Q: How did the case reach the Florida Supreme Court?
The case reached the Florida Supreme Court through a petition for review of the referee's report and recommended discipline. The Florida Bar sought review of the referee's recommendation for suspension instead of disbarment.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- The Florida Bar v. Thomas, 960 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2007)
- The Florida Bar v. Valentine, 957 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2007)
- The Florida Bar v. Condon, 910 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2005)
Case Details
| Case Name | The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell |
| Citation | |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-05-15 |
| Docket Number | SC2023-0869 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Mixed Outcome |
| Disposition | modified |
| Impact Score | 30 / 100 |
| Significance | This case underscores the Florida Supreme Court's approach to attorney discipline, balancing the need for strict adherence to ethical rules, particularly concerning client funds, with consideration for mitigating factors. It serves as a reminder to attorneys about the critical importance of proper trust account management and client communication, while also indicating that disbarment is not automatic for all instances of fund mismanagement. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Attorney trust account management, Misappropriation of client funds, Duty of diligence and communication, Professional responsibility of attorneys, Disciplinary sanctions for attorney misconduct |
| Jurisdiction | fl |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Rules Regulating the Florida Bar or from the Florida Supreme Court:
-
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
Florida court upholds conviction, admitting prior 'bad acts' evidenceFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-23
-
Armando Arce v. Chief Judge Timothy D. Osterhaus
Judicial immunity shields judge from civil suit over alleged due process violationsFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-23
-
In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Substance Use Terminology
Florida Supreme Court Approves Amendments to Substance Use Terminology RulesFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-16
-
Joseph Zieler v. State of Florida
Florida Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Plaintiff's Constitutional ClaimsFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-16
-
Chadwick Willacy v. State of Florida & Chadwick Willacy v. State of Florida
Appellate Court Upholds Vehicle Search and ConvictionsFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-15
-
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Florida Supreme Court Approves Amendments to Appellate RulesFlorida Supreme Court · 2026-04-09
-
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Florida Supreme Court · 2026-03-19
-
In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Professionalism Expectations
Florida Supreme Court · 2026-03-19