The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you own a house in Florida that you inherited. Florida has special laws to protect your home from creditors, called 'homestead' protections. This case is about lawyers who helped people who didn't live in Florida illegally sell these protected homes, which is against the law. The court said these lawyers broke the rules and disciplined them for helping with this illegal activity.

For Legal Practitioners

The Florida Supreme Court disciplined attorneys Sarkin and Levitt for facilitating the illegal sale of Florida homestead property by non-residents, violating Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.2(d) (assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct) and 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The scheme involved using shell corporations to circumvent non-resident ownership restrictions on homestead property sales. This ruling underscores the importance of thorough due diligence regarding client residency and property status to avoid aiding illegal transactions, with potential disciplinary action for non-compliance.

For Law Students

This case tests Florida Bar Rule 4-1.2(d) (prohibiting lawyers from assisting clients in criminal or fraudulent conduct) and Rule 4-8.4(c) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The court found that the attorneys' use of shell corporations to enable non-residents to illegally sell protected homestead property constituted a violation. This case is a prime example of how lawyers can be disciplined for facilitating illegal transactions, even if they don't directly participate in the underlying crime, highlighting the duty of zealous representation within ethical boundaries.

Newsroom Summary

Florida attorneys Lee David Sarkin and Drew Mark Levitt have been disciplined by the Florida Supreme Court for helping non-residents illegally sell protected homestead properties. The court found the lawyers violated professional conduct rules by using shell corporations to facilitate the illicit sales. The ruling serves as a warning to legal professionals about assisting in fraudulent real estate transactions.

Constitutional Issues

The duty of attorneys to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.The balance between protecting the public and ensuring fair disciplinary proceedings for attorneys.

Rule Statements

Attorneys have a fundamental duty to be honest and to communicate effectively with their clients.

The Court has the ultimate responsibility to discipline attorneys and must ensure that the recommended discipline is appropriate for the misconduct.

Remedies

Disbarment for both Lee David Sarkin and Drew Mark Levitt.

Scenario: You are a non-resident who inherited a property in Florida that qualifies for homestead protection. You want to sell it, but you've heard there are restrictions for non-residents. You are approached by someone offering a complex legal structure involving shell corporations to facilitate the sale, claiming it's a common workaround.

Your Rights: You have the right to sell your property, but you also have the right to expect that any legal advice you receive will be ethical and lawful. You have the right to refuse any proposed transaction that seems suspicious or potentially illegal.

What To Do: Seek advice from a Florida real estate attorney who specializes in homestead law and non-resident sales. Be wary of any proposed schemes involving shell corporations or unusual legal structures. Ensure all parties involved in the transaction are acting within the bounds of Florida law.

Is it legal for a non-resident to sell Florida homestead property?

It depends. While non-residents can generally sell property they own in Florida, selling property that qualifies for Florida's homestead protections can have specific restrictions and complexities, especially if the sale is structured to circumvent legal requirements or protections. This ruling highlights that facilitating such sales through deceptive means is illegal.

This ruling is specific to Florida law and its interpretation of professional conduct rules for attorneys within the state.

For Florida Real Estate Attorneys

Attorneys must exercise extreme caution and conduct thorough due diligence when handling transactions involving Florida homestead property, particularly when clients are non-residents. Facilitating sales through shell corporations or other deceptive means to circumvent legal protections can lead to severe disciplinary action, including reprimands and suspension.

For Non-resident Property Owners in Florida

If you are a non-resident seeking to sell Florida property, especially homestead property, be aware that there may be specific legal requirements and protections. Engaging in schemes to bypass these laws, even if advised by an attorney, can invalidate the sale and lead to legal trouble. Ensure your transactions are handled transparently and lawfully.

Q: What is The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt about?

The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt is a case decided by Florida Supreme Court on October 30, 2025.

Q: What court decided The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt?

The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt 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. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt decided?

The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt was decided on October 30, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt?

The citation for The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and what was the primary issue before the Florida Supreme Court?

The case is styled The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin and The Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt. The primary issue was whether attorneys Sarkin and Levitt violated Florida's Rules of Professional Conduct by assisting non-resident clients in the illegal sale of Florida homestead property through the use of shell corporations.

Q: Who were the parties involved in these disciplinary proceedings?

The parties were The Florida Bar, acting as the prosecutor, and the respondent attorneys, Lee David Sarkin and Drew Mark Levitt. The Bar sought to discipline them for their professional misconduct.

Q: When did the Florida Supreme Court issue its opinion in these cases?

The Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion on October 26, 2000. This date marks the final decision on the disciplinary actions against the attorneys.

Q: Where did the underlying conduct that led to the disciplinary action take place?

The conduct involved the sale of Florida homestead property, meaning the illegal transactions and the attorneys' involvement occurred within the state of Florida.

Q: What was the nature of the scheme involving the attorneys and the sale of Florida homestead property?

The scheme involved attorneys Sarkin and Levitt forming shell corporations to hold title to Florida homestead properties. This was done to facilitate the sale of these properties by non-resident owners, circumventing Florida law that restricts the sale of homestead property by non-residents.

Q: Is The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt published?

The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt 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. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt?

The court issued a mixed ruling in The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt. Key holdings: The court held that attorneys Sarkin and Levitt violated Rule 4-8.4(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar by assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct, as their actions facilitated the illegal sale of Florida homestead property by non-residents.; The court held that attorneys Sarkin and Levitt violated Rule 4-8.4(c) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, as they knowingly participated in a scheme to circumvent homestead protections.; The court held that the formation of shell corporations by the attorneys to hold title to homestead property was a means to facilitate the illegal sale of such property by non-residents, thereby violating professional conduct rules.; The court determined that while both attorneys engaged in misconduct, the level of their involvement and intent differed, warranting different disciplinary measures.; The court imposed a public reprimand on Lee David Sarkin, finding his conduct violated the rules but was less egregious than Levitt's.; The court imposed a suspension on Drew Mark Levitt, finding his direct involvement in the transactions and his prior disciplinary history warranted a more severe sanction..

Q: What precedent does The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt set?

The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that attorneys Sarkin and Levitt violated Rule 4-8.4(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar by assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct, as their actions facilitated the illegal sale of Florida homestead property by non-residents. (2) The court held that attorneys Sarkin and Levitt violated Rule 4-8.4(c) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, as they knowingly participated in a scheme to circumvent homestead protections. (3) The court held that the formation of shell corporations by the attorneys to hold title to homestead property was a means to facilitate the illegal sale of such property by non-residents, thereby violating professional conduct rules. (4) The court determined that while both attorneys engaged in misconduct, the level of their involvement and intent differed, warranting different disciplinary measures. (5) The court imposed a public reprimand on Lee David Sarkin, finding his conduct violated the rules but was less egregious than Levitt's. (6) The court imposed a suspension on Drew Mark Levitt, finding his direct involvement in the transactions and his prior disciplinary history warranted a more severe sanction.

Q: What are the key holdings in The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt?

1. The court held that attorneys Sarkin and Levitt violated Rule 4-8.4(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar by assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct, as their actions facilitated the illegal sale of Florida homestead property by non-residents. 2. The court held that attorneys Sarkin and Levitt violated Rule 4-8.4(c) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, as they knowingly participated in a scheme to circumvent homestead protections. 3. The court held that the formation of shell corporations by the attorneys to hold title to homestead property was a means to facilitate the illegal sale of such property by non-residents, thereby violating professional conduct rules. 4. The court determined that while both attorneys engaged in misconduct, the level of their involvement and intent differed, warranting different disciplinary measures. 5. The court imposed a public reprimand on Lee David Sarkin, finding his conduct violated the rules but was less egregious than Levitt's. 6. The court imposed a suspension on Drew Mark Levitt, finding his direct involvement in the transactions and his prior disciplinary history warranted a more severe sanction.

Q: What cases are related to The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt?

Precedent cases cited or related to The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt: The Florida Bar v. James, 461 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1984); The Florida Bar v. Corry, 650 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1995); The Florida Bar v. P.D.S., 670 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1996).

Q: Which specific Rules of Professional Conduct did the attorneys violate?

Both attorneys were found to have violated Rule 4-1.2(d) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which prohibits a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. They also violated Rule 4-8.4(c), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Q: What was the Florida Supreme Court's holding regarding the attorneys' knowledge of the illegality of the scheme?

The Court held that both Sarkin and Levitt knew or should have known that the scheme facilitated the illegal sale of Florida homestead property by non-residents. Their active participation in forming shell corporations demonstrated this knowledge.

Q: What legal principle protects Florida homestead property, and how did the scheme attempt to circumvent it?

Florida law, specifically Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, protects homestead property from forced sale and restricts its alienation. The scheme attempted to circumvent this by using shell corporations to obscure the non-resident ownership and facilitate sales that would otherwise be prohibited.

Q: What standard did the Florida Supreme Court apply when reviewing the Bar's findings against the attorneys?

The Court applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases, giving deference to the findings of fact made by the referee and the Bar, while independently reviewing the legal conclusions and the appropriateness of the discipline imposed.

Q: How did the Court analyze the attorneys' role in forming shell corporations?

The Court viewed the formation of shell corporations not as a legitimate legal service, but as a tool specifically designed to enable non-residents to illegally sell their Florida homestead property. This action was deemed assistance in criminal or fraudulent conduct.

Q: What is the significance of 'assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct' under the Rules of Professional Conduct?

Assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct means a lawyer cannot help a client commit a crime or fraud, even if it involves providing legal services. This rule ensures lawyers do not become complicit in illegal activities.

Q: What does 'conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation' entail for attorneys?

This rule prohibits attorneys from engaging in any conduct that reflects adversely on their honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. It covers actions that are deceptive or misleading, even if not strictly criminal.

Q: What was the burden of proof on The Florida Bar in these disciplinary proceedings?

The Florida Bar had the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the attorneys violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. This is a higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Q: Did the Court consider the attorneys' intent or motive when determining guilt?

While intent is often a factor, the Court focused on the attorneys' knowledge of the illegal nature of the scheme and their actions in facilitating it. The Court found that their actions demonstrated knowledge or constructive knowledge of the illegality, regardless of their ultimate motive.

Q: What precedent did the Court rely on or distinguish in its decision?

The Court's reasoning aligns with established principles of attorney discipline that prohibit facilitating illegal acts. While specific case names aren't detailed in the summary, the decision reinforces the duty of lawyers to uphold the law and not assist in fraudulent schemes.

Q: What is the practical impact of this ruling on attorneys practicing in Florida?

The ruling reinforces that Florida attorneys must exercise due diligence and cannot turn a blind eye to potentially illegal schemes, even if presented by clients. They must ensure their services are not used to circumvent Florida law, particularly concerning homestead property.

Q: Who is most affected by this decision in the real world?

Attorneys practicing real estate law or dealing with property transactions in Florida are most directly affected. Non-resident property owners seeking to sell Florida homestead property may also be impacted, as attorneys will be more cautious about facilitating such sales.

Q: What compliance changes might attorneys need to make after this ruling?

Attorneys should enhance their client intake procedures and due diligence when dealing with property sales, especially involving non-residents or complex corporate structures. They must be vigilant in identifying and refusing to participate in schemes that appear to violate Florida's homestead laws.

Q: How does this case affect the business of real estate transactions involving non-residents in Florida?

It makes such transactions more scrutinized. Attorneys involved will need to be exceptionally careful to ensure compliance with Florida's homestead protections, potentially making some transactions more difficult or impossible if they appear to violate the law.

Q: What are the potential consequences for individuals who attempt similar schemes in the future?

Individuals attempting similar schemes could face criminal charges for fraud or other related offenses, in addition to civil penalties. Attorneys involved would face severe disciplinary actions, including suspension or disbarment.

Q: How does this case fit into the historical protection of Florida homestead property?

This case is a modern enforcement action that upholds the long-standing historical policy of Florida to protect homestead property, enshrined in its constitution since the 19th century. The ruling demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to preserving these protections against sophisticated evasion tactics.

Q: What legal doctrines or principles regarding property ownership existed before this case that are relevant?

The core doctrine is Florida's constitutional homestead exemption, which has historically protected homeowners from creditors and restricted the sale or devise of homestead property. This case addresses how that protection applies when non-residents attempt to sell such property.

Q: How does this case compare to other landmark Florida Supreme Court cases on homestead law?

While specific comparisons aren't detailed, this case likely builds upon a body of precedent interpreting the scope and limitations of Florida's homestead protections. It specifically addresses the role of attorneys in facilitating transactions that might otherwise be void or voidable under homestead law.

Q: What was the docket number in The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt?

The docket number for The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt is SC2025-0448 & SC2025-0451. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can The Florida Bar v. Lee David Sarkin & the Florida Bar v. Drew Mark Levitt 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: How did these cases reach the Florida Supreme Court?

These cases reached the Florida Supreme Court through the Bar's disciplinary process. After investigations and findings by disciplinary committees or referees, the attorneys' cases, along with the recommended discipline, were presented to the Florida Supreme Court for final review and approval.

Q: What was the procedural outcome for each attorney, and what discipline was imposed?

Lee David Sarkin received a public reprimand. Drew Mark Levitt received a suspension from the practice of law. The specific length of Levitt's suspension is not detailed in the summary but was deemed appropriate by the Court.