Florida Bar v. Roberto, 59 So. 3d 1101

Roberto represented two female clients in separate criminal matters while admitting sexual relations with both.
No written fee agreements were entered with either client; Roberto did not collect monetary fees.
Roberto provided financial assistance outside the litigation scope to both clients (license fee, commissary deposits, clothing, groceries).
He used a client to solicit additional business, purchasing a cellular phone for referrals to other potential clients.
Referee found violations of 4-1.8(e) (Financial Assistance to a Client) and 4-7.4(a) (Solicitation); Bar petitioned for review.
Court held that 4-1.7(a) (Conflict of Interest) was also violated and imposed a one-year rehabilitative suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Roberto violate 4-1.7(a) conflict of interest?	Bar: yes, conflicts existed due to sexual relations impairing judgment.	Roberto: referee did not find a violation of 4-1.7(a).	Yes; conflict of interest established; 4-1.7(a) violated.
Is probation for one year an adequate sanction?	Bar: probation too lenient given misconduct; pattern supports harsher sanction.	Roberto: probation deemed sufficient by referee.	No; probation insufficient; rehabilitative suspension of one year imposed.
Should aggravating factors (pattern of misconduct) be considered?	Bar: pattern shown by sexual relationships with two clients and financial assistance.	Roberto: none offered through defense; referee did not treat pattern as aggravating.	Yes; pattern properly considered as aggravating under 9.22(c).

Fla. Bar v. Germain, 957 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2007) (aggravation/mitigation factors; standard of review for sanctions)
Fla. Bar v. Barrett, 897 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 2005) (emphasizes seriousness and deterrence in sanctioning)
Fla. Bar v. Rue, 643 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1994) (rehabilitative suspension in ethical violations involving financial assistance)