Florida Bar v. Committe, 136 So. 3d 1111

In a 2002 civil suit, Respondent Bruce Edward Committe sued for tortious interference and slander; the circuit court entered final summary judgment for the defendant in 2004, finding no admissible evidence to support the claims.
The circuit court awarded the defendant $13,000 in attorney’s fees (split between Committe and his client) in October 2004; a January 2005 final judgment incorporated that order and the First DCA later affirmed.
Committe failed to pay his share of the fee award and, after the defendant (unrepresented) sent letters seeking payment in 2007–2008, Committe wrote to the U.S. Attorney accusing her of attempted extortion.
The Florida Bar charged Committe with violations of Rules 4-3.1, 4-3.4(c), 4-3.4(g), and 4-8.4(d); a referee found guilt as to 4-3.4(g) and 4-8.4(d) but not 4-3.1 or 4-3.4(c), and recommended a 91-day suspension.
The Court reviewed the referee’s report, rejected the not-guilty findings on 4-3.1 and 4-3.4(c), found additional misconduct (including false testimony and prior similar discipline), and imposed a three-year suspension plus costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (The Florida Bar)	Defendant's Argument (Committe)	Held
Whether Committe filed a frivolous suit (Rule 4-3.1)	Complaint was frivolous because the trial court found no admissible evidence and later fee order labeled the claim meritless	Complaint stated valid claims; not frivolous	Guilty — the court held the record (summary judgment, fee order, appellate affirmance) shows the suit was frivolous
Whether Committe knowingly disobeyed a tribunal order (Rule 4-3.4(c))	Committe knowingly refused to pay the fee award despite awareness of the order	He lacked the financial ability and disputed enforceability of the fee award	Guilty — knowledge of the order and continued refusal established a violation; inability to pay not proven as a defense
Whether Committe threatened or presented criminal charges to gain civil advantage (Rule 4-3.4(g))	Letter to U.S. Attorney timed to coincide with collection efforts and intended to intimidate the defendant	He had a duty/constitutional right to report alleged extortion; protected petitioning activity	Guilty — letter was baseless and intended to obtain civil advantage; First Amendment does not protect baseless allegations or litigation
Whether Committe’s conduct was prejudicial to administration of justice (Rule 4-8.4(d))	Filing frivolous suit, refusing to obey a court order, and reporting the defendant were prejudicial	Conduct was protected or justified	Guilty — combined misconduct was prejudicial and warranted suspension

Fla. Bar v. Shoureas, 913 So.2d 554 (court reviews whether referee’s factual findings support guilt determination)
Fla. Bar v. Anderson, 538 So.2d 852 (appellate responsibility to order appropriate sanction)
Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555 (court will not second-guess referee’s sanction if reasonable under standards)
Fla. Bar v. Gwynn, 94 So.3d 425 (suspension for filing frivolous claims and bad-faith motions)
Fla. Bar v. Hagendorf, 921 So.2d 611 (two-year suspension for meritless actions and misrepresentations)
Fla. Bar v. Gersten, 707 So.2d 711 (suspension for failing to comply with court order)
Fla. Bar v. Committe, 916 So.2d 741 (prior discipline for similar misconduct; aggravating factor)
Fla. Bar v. Patrick, 67 So.3d 1009 (cumulative similar misconduct warrants greater discipline)
Fla. Bar v. Walkden, 950 So.2d 407 (same principle regarding cumulative misconduct)
McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (First Amendment does not immunize baseless petitioning)
Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (baseless litigation not protected by petition clause)
Fla. Bar v. Rubin, 549 So.2d 1000 (attorney cannot ignore court order)