370 So.3d 876
Fla.2023Background:
- Bruce Jacobs, a foreclosure-defense attorney, made repeated filings in three foreclosure cases accusing judges and courts of enabling fraud by financial institutions.
- The Florida Bar filed a three-count complaint alleging Jacobs violated Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-8.2(a) (impugning judges’ qualifications or integrity); a referee held hearings, found guilt on all three counts, and recommended a 90-day suspension.
- Jacobs defended on grounds including that his statements were truthful or made in good-faith advocacy, selective prosecution, and mitigation based on mental health and remorse; the referee rejected these defenses (except noting mitigation potential).
- The referee acquitted Jacobs on a separate charge under Bar Rule 4-3.3(a)(3) (false evidence/duty to disclose); neither party challenged that finding.
- The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee’s guilt findings but altered discipline: disapproved the 90-day non-rehabilitative suspension and instead imposed a 91-day rehabilitative suspension, effective 30 days after filing (or immediately if Jacobs certifies he needs no wind-down time).
- The Court awarded the Bar costs of $10,671.75 and required Jacobs to comply with Bar rules on suspension and client protection.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jacobs’ statements violated Bar Rule 4-8.2(a) | Bar: Jacobs made statements impugning judges without an objectively reasonable factual basis | Jacobs: statements were not false or made with reckless disregard; constituted zealous advocacy | Court: Approved referee — Jacobs violated 4-8.2(a); failed to show an objectively reasonable factual basis |
| Whether selective prosecution defense bars discipline | Bar: prosecution was proper and not selective | Jacobs: Bar selectively prosecuted him while ignoring similar misconduct by others | Court: Rejected selective prosecution — record did not show comparable unpunished identical misconduct |
| Appropriate discipline and length of suspension | Bar: two-year rehabilitative suspension appropriate (citing similar cases) | Jacobs: shorter suspension (referee recommended 90 days) | Court: Rejected both proposals; imposed 91-day rehabilitative suspension given pattern/multiple offenses but no prior discipline |
| Whether Bar proved violation of Bar Rule 4-3.3(a)(3) (false evidence) | Bar: alleged Jacobs failed duty to disclose false evidence | Jacobs: denied violation | Court: Referee’s not-guilty finding approved; Bar failed to prove violation |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (defamation standard; Court notes it does not apply to Bar Rule 4-8.2(a))
- Fla. Bar v. Ray, 797 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2001) (adopts objective-reasonable-factual-basis test for attorney statements about judges)
- Fla. Bar v. Norkin, 132 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2013) (similar misconduct; Court imposed two-year rehabilitative suspension)
- Fla. Bar v. Patterson, 330 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 2021) (two-year suspension where prior discipline was significant)
- Fla. Bar v. Germain, 957 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2007) (standard for challenging referee’s factual findings)
- Fla. Bar v. Kinsella, 260 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 2018) (scope of appellate review of recommended discipline)
- Thompson v. Florida Bar, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (elements for selective prosecution defense in Bar discipline)
- Fla. Bar v. Abramson, 3 So. 3d 964 (Fla. 2009) (prior case addressing similar unprofessional conduct and discipline)