Florida Bar v. Patrick, 67 So. 3d 1009

The Florida Bar filed a November 2009 complaint alleging Patrick violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.3, 4-1.8(e), and 4-8.4(c).
A referee held hearings, found credibility in Newman over Patrick, and recommended guilt on several counts and costs to The Florida Bar.
Patrick represented Dr. Newman in two PIP claims against Progressive Insurance; the contingent-fee contract tied Newman’s payment of fees to Progressive’s liability for fees.
Mediation offered $2,500 to settle the two PIP claims for $48 in potential benefits; Newman rejected the offer, influenced by Patrick’s representations about fees and risk.
Newman ultimately prevailed on one PIP claim for $24 with substantial attorney’s fees; Progressive prevailed on the other; Caldevilla’s appellate fees were paid by Patrick.
The referee concluded Patrick induced Newman to reject the mediation to pursue full attorney’s fees, placing his own interests above the client’s.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Patrick promise to indemnify Newman for Progressive’s fees?	Newman	Patrick	Yes; supported by competent substantial evidence
Did Patrick violate rule 4-1.8(e) by funding another attorney’s appellate fees?	Newman	Patrick	Yes; rule 4-1.8(e) violated
Is a one-year suspension an appropriate sanction?	The Florida Bar	Patrick	Yes; one-year suspension affirmed

Florida Bar v. Jasperson, 625 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1993) (indicates improper subsidizing of client’s litigation violated 4-1.8(e))
Florida Bar v. Rotstein, 835 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2002) (moves toward stronger sanctions for attorney misconduct; precedent for severity)
Florida Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1999) (emphasizes sanctions standards and prior similar misconduct impact)
Florida Bar v. Korones, 752 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2000) (dishonesty and candor not tolerated in the profession)
Florida Bar v. Elster, 770 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 2000) (credibility determinations reserved to referee; deference afforded)