The Florida Bar v. Kelsay Dayon Patterson
257 So. 3d 56
| Fla. | 2018Background
- Patterson represented Johanna Faddis in civil litigation against the City of Homestead; the trial court struck Faddis’s pleadings for perjury and awarded final judgment and sanctions against both client and counsel.
- Patterson pursued related appeals and a §1983 action; he wrote a September 20, 2013 letter to a federal judge and circulated it to state judges, accusing judges and opposing counsel of undue influence and bias.
- The Third District affirmed the trial court’s findings of fraud and sanctioned Faddis and Patterson; Patterson’s appellate filings and response to a show-cause order contained disparaging, incendiary rhetoric and focused substantially on his own interests.
- The Florida Bar charged Patterson with multiple ethics violations; the referee found Patterson guilty only of Bar Rule 3-4.3 (misconduct/minor misconduct) and recommended an admonishment with probation.
- The Bar sought review of the referee’s no-guilt recommendations on Bar Rules 4-1.7 (conflict of interest), 4-8.2(a) (impugning judges), and 4-8.4(d) (prejudicial conduct); the Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the record and the referee’s findings.
- The Court affirmed guilt on 3-4.3, reversed the referee as to 4-1.7, 4-8.2(a), and 4-8.4(d), found Patterson guilty of those violations, and imposed a one-year suspension (effective 30 days after filing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patterson created a conflict of interest by pursuing appeals that served his personal/financial interests (Bar Rule 4-1.7) | Bar: Patterson had a substantial personal/financial interest in the appeal (shared attorney-fee liability) that materially limited his loyalty to Faddis and lacked informed written consent | Patterson: his appellate advocacy was aimed at challenging sanctions broadly and protecting both client and himself; no conflict impaired representation | Court: Patterson’s personal interest supplanted client advocacy, he did not obtain informed written consent, and he violated Rule 4-1.7 |
| Whether Patterson violated the prohibition on impugning judges without an objectively reasonable factual basis (Bar Rule 4-8.2(a)) | Bar: Patterson’s letter and filings attacked judges’ integrity without an objectively reasonable factual basis, made with reckless disregard for truth | Patterson: acted from sincere belief his client was wronged and sought to expose perceived impropriety; did not intend improper court communications | Court: Patterson lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis for his accusations and acted with reckless disregard, violating Rule 4-8.2(a) |
| Whether Patterson engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (Bar Rule 4-8.4(d)) | Bar: his pursuit of personal interests, incendiary filings, and disparaging letters undermined civility and interfered with proceedings | Patterson: motivated by duty to client and belief in systemic injustice; not meant to prejudice administration of justice | Court: conduct hindered client’s appeal, risked additional sanctions, and eroded professional civility; violated Rule 4-8.4(d) |
| Whether the referee’s admonishment/probation was adequate discipline | Bar: recommended review as too lenient given multiple rule violations and lack of full acceptance of responsibility | Patterson: urged mitigation (no prior record, cooperation, volunteer work, belief he acted rightly, financial hardship) | Court: admonishment insufficient; imposed one-year suspension based on conflict, improper communications, repeated disparagement, and failure to accept responsibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Bar v. Ray, 797 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2001) (objective factual basis required before a lawyer may publicly impugn a judge)
- Fla. Bar v. Roberto, 59 So.3d 1101 (Fla. 2011) (suspension for conflict of interest where lawyer’s personal interests impaired client loyalty)
- The Fla. Bar v. Abramson, 3 So.3d 964 (Fla. 2009) (suspension for discourteous, disrespectful conduct toward a judge; precedent for discipline on professionalism grounds)
- Fla. Bar v. Norkin, 132 So.3d 77 (Fla. 2013) (two-year suspension for pattern of disrespectful/unprofessional conduct toward judges and counsel)
- Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1999) (standard that court will not second-guess referee’s discipline if it reasonably accords with standards and precedent)