The Florida Bar v. Christopher W. Crowley, SC2020-0529

The Florida Bar charged Christopher W. Crowley with violating rule 4-8.2(a) by making false or reckless campaign statements about opponent Amira Fox’s qualifications and integrity in a state attorney race. 1
The referee found Crowley guilty of violating rules 4-8.2(a) and 3-4.3, recommended no guilt on rules 4-8.4(a) and 4-8.4(d), and recommended a sixty-day suspension. 2
Crowley argued that disciplining his campaign speech would violate the First Amendment, while the Bar defended the rule as a regulation of misleading statements about a legal-office candidate. 3
The Court held that rule 4-8.2(a) is a content-based restriction and that its application to Crowley’s political campaign speech fails strict scrutiny. 4
The Court also rejected the Bar’s cross-appeal on rules 4-8.4(a) and 4-8.4(d), concluding Crowley’s campaign speech was not conduct in connection with the practice of law and could not support derivative discipline. 5

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rule 4-8.2(a) can punish Crowley’s campaign speech 6	Crowley said the rule cannot constitutionally reach his election speech.	The Bar said the rule protects judicial-system integrity and public confidence.	As applied to Crowley, the rule is unconstitutional. 7
Whether the Bar showed a compelling interest for this application 8	Crowley said generalized integrity concerns cannot justify political-speech limits.	The Bar said protecting public confidence in the justice system is compelling.	No compelling interest justified restricting state attorney campaign speech. 9
Whether rules 4-8.4(a) and 4-8.4(d) supported discipline 10	Crowley challenged the referee’s guilt recommendation on those rules.	The Bar sought reversal of the no-guilt findings.	The Court rejected the Bar’s cross-appeal and no discipline stood under those rules. 11

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461 (U.S. 2025) (First Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment 12)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (U.S. 2015) (speech about candidates for elected office receives the highest First Amendment protection; judicial elections are uniquely restricted 13)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (campaign speech receives the First Amendment’s fullest and most urgent protection 14)
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1966) (the First Amendment protects discussion of candidates and political processes 15)
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1972) (government may not restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content 16)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (U.S. 2015) (content-based restrictions on speech trigger strict scrutiny 17)
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (U.S. 2014) (content-based law may require examination of message to determine a violation 18)
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (U.S. 1991) (attorney speech in ongoing judicial proceedings may be tightly limited 19)
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (U.S. 2018) (speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals 20)
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1963) (the State may not ignore constitutional rights under the guise of professional misconduct regulation 21)