382 So.3d 600
Fla.2024Background
- Jonathan Stephen Schwartz, a Florida attorney, was subject to two separate disciplinary proceedings (SC2019-0983 and SC2021-0484) for violations of Bar rules regarding advertising and improper communication with represented parties.
- In SC2019-0983, Schwartz sent an unsolicited text message advertising his services to a prospective client, violating several Florida Bar advertising rules, including failure to label the message as an advertisement, omitting required disclosures, and not filing the advertisement for review.
- In SC2021-0484, Schwartz met and communicated with a criminal defendant he knew was represented by the Public Defender’s Office, prepared an affidavit for that defendant, and filed it in court without notifying the defendant’s counsel.
- Both referees found Schwartz guilty of misconduct and recommended suspensions (ten days and ninety days, respectively); Schwartz was already under a three-year suspension for prior deceptive conduct in judicial proceedings.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the cumulative nature of Schwartz’s history, found an escalating pattern of misconduct involving dishonesty, and ordered disbarment instead of suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Schwartz’s text message violate advertising rules? | Bar: The text failed multiple rules. | Schwartz: Rules didn't apply to text messages; safe harbor. | Violation found; rules applied to texting. |
| Did Schwartz improperly communicate with a represented party? | Bar: He knew the party was represented. | Schwartz: Affidavit was necessary; no direct prohibition. | Violation found; rules clearly violated. |
| Was suspension an adequate sanction for these violations? | Bar: Sought stricter discipline due to pattern. | Schwartz: Prior sanctions and mitigating factors sufficed. | Disbarment warranted due to cumulative conduct. |
| Were the aggravating and mitigating factors correctly applied? | Bar: Referees applied them incorrectly. | Schwartz: Facts supported mitigation, minimal harm. | Court rejected most mitigating factors as unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Bar v. Schwartz, 284 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2019) (deceptive alteration of evidence warranted serious discipline)
- Fla. Bar v. Schwartz, 334 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 2022) (prior three-year suspension for misconduct)
- Fla. Bar v. Dopazo, 232 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2017) (one-year suspension for unethical client solicitation)
- Fla. Bar v. Letwin, 70 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 2011) (one-year suspension for repeated solicitation violations)
- Fla. Bar v. Feinberg, 760 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2000) (communication with represented party prejudicial to justice)
- Fla. Bar v. Wolfe, 759 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2000) (cumulative misconduct warrants severe discipline)