The Florida Bar v. Jonathan Stephen Schwartz, 334 So.3d 298

Jonathan S. Schwartz (admitted 1986) created two altered black-and-white photocopies of a police lineup and showed them to the robbery victim at a pretrial deposition; the altered copies retained the victim’s circled identification and signatures.
Schwartz did not disclose the alterations to opposing counsel or the prosecutor until confronted during the deposition. The Florida Bar charged violations of Bar Rule 3-4.3 and 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty/deceit).
In a prior Florida Supreme Court opinion the Court found as a matter of law that Schwartz knowingly and deliberately created deceptive exhibits and remanded the case to a new referee for a sanctions-only hearing. (Fla. Bar v. Schwartz, 284 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2019)).
The successor referee recommended a 90-day suspension followed by one year probation; the Bar sought a three-year rehabilitative suspension.
The referee found mitigation (cooperation, character evidence, personal toll) and aggravation (multiple prior disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct, long practice). Schwartz’s prior record includes a 90-day suspension (consent, 2012) and earlier public reprimands and admonishments for dishonesty-related violations.
The Court disapproved the referee’s 90-day recommendation and imposed a three-year suspension (effective 30 days after opinion) plus probationary conditions and costs, emphasizing cumulative dishonesty and prior discipline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Schwartz violated Bar Rules 3-4.3 and 4-8.4(c)	Bar: He knowingly created and used deceptive altered lineups	Schwartz: Alterations were to aid zealous defense; motive negates culpability	Court previously ruled Schwartz knowingly altered exhibits and therefore violated the rules (guilt established)
Appropriate sanction (90 days vs. 3 years)	Bar: Three-year rehabilitative suspension warranted given dishonesty and prior record	Schwartz: 90-day suspension with probation is adequate; mitigation and cooperation support lighter sanction	Court imposed a three-year suspension, finding 90 days insufficient in light of cumulative misconduct and case law
Role of prior discipline in sanctioning	Bar: Prior sanctions show a pattern and are aggravating, requiring escalated sanction	Schwartz: Mitigating evidence and time/effort to change practice reduce need for severe sanction	Court treated prior discipline as significant aggravation and increased sanction accordingly
Whether zealous advocacy excuses the misconduct	Bar: Zealousness does not justify deception	Schwartz: Actions intended to provide effective representation	Court: Zealous advocacy does not excuse dishonesty; cannot cloak unethical conduct

Florida Bar v. Schwartz, 284 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2019) (prior Supreme Court opinion finding Schwartz knowingly altered lineups and remanding for sanctions)
Florida Bar v. Hmielewski, 702 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1997) (three-year suspension for deliberate misrepresentations)
Florida Bar v. Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2015) (one-year suspension for filing false financial statements and withholding evidence)
Florida Bar v. Marcellus, 249 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 2018) (discussion of Standards and appellate review of referee sanctions)
Florida Bar v. MacNamara, 132 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 2013) (ninety-day suspension where lawyer admitted misrepresentations and had no prior discipline)
Florida Bar v. Berthiaume, 78 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2011) (dishonesty is a grave flaw that cannot be tolerated)
Florida Bar v. Buckle, 771 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2000) (zealous advocacy does not excuse unethical conduct)