Florida Bar v. Adorno, 60 So. 3d 1016

The Florida Bar and Adorno petition this Court for review of a referee’s report finding guilt on ethical violations and recommending a public reprimand, with the Bar seeking harsher sanction and Adorno challenging guilt.
Adorno settled a City of Miami class-action dispute for $7 million for seven named plaintiffs who had total damages of about $84,000, securing a $2 million firm fee, while the broader class’ claims remained unresolved.
The settlement was crafted and announced before class certification, and Adorno negotiated with City officials largely on his own, without advising the putative class or pursuing the full class claims.
A standstill agreement and a nondisclosure agreement were used to keep settlement terms secret from the class, and the City was told it might offset future claims, raising conflict and fiduciary concerns.
Masztal v. City of Miami was relied upon to describe the conduct and its impact on the putative class, including breach of fiduciary duty and improper settlement of individual claims to the class’s detriment.
The referee found violations of Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.7 (conflict of interest), 4-1.5 (excessive or prohibited fees), and 4-8.4 (misconduct), with aggravating and mitigating factors; the Court imposed a three-year suspension, rejecting the referee’s public reprimand recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Adorno violate conflict of interest rule 4-1.7?	Adorno contends no duty to the class since not certified.	Adorno argues no adverse representation to others since it was only about named plaintiffs.	Yes; improper settlement harmed the putative class and created adverse interests.
Did Adorno violate 4-8.4 through dishonesty or misrepresentation?	Arguments focus on reliance on others and mediation process.	Adorno claims actions were grounded in mediation strategy and advice of others.	Yes; concealment and secret nondisclosure of terms violated 4-8.4(c) and 4-8.4(a).
Was the fee or fee-structure a prohibited fee under 4-1.5?	Bar contends the fee was excessive and obtained by improper means.	Adorno argues the fee was justified by proportion or context.	Yes; the fee was obtained by unethical means and is prohibited under 4-1.5.
Was Adorno’s conduct knowing misconduct under standards 4.32, 7.2, and 7.1 warranting suspension?	Adorno knowingly moved to benefit named plaintiffs at class expense.	Adorno asserts lack of intent or reliance on others mitigates fault.	Yes; conduct was knowing and intentional, supporting substantial sanctions.
What is the appropriate discipline given the totality of misconduct?	Bar seeks stronger discipline than public reprimand.	Adorno argues rehabilitative suspension is appropriate.	Three-year suspension is warranted; public reprimand rejected.

Masztal v. City of Miami, 971 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (fiduciary duties in class-action settlement)
Rodriguez, 959 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2007) (secret engagement and conflicts in bar discipline)
St. Louis, 967 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2007) (duty and intent in conflict cases; disbarment considerations)
Herman, 8 So.3d 1100 (Fla. 2009) (ongoing concealed conflict; discipline under 4-1.7 and 4-8.4)
Pahules, 233 So.2d 130 (Fla. 1970) (three precepts for determining discipline)
Liberman, 43 So.3d 36 (Fla. 2010) (sanctions considerations and deterrence)
Korones, 752 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2000) (prior good deeds do not excuse ethics violations)
Moody v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 191 N.C.App. 256, 664 S.E.2d 569 (N.C. App. 2008) (class-action abuse pre-certification scenarios)