The Florida Bar v. Kelsay Dayon Patterson, 330 So.3d 519

Background

Patterson previously received a one-year suspension (Florida Bar v. Patterson) for misconduct in the Faddis litigation, including making unfounded accusations of judicial and counsel bias.
This disciplinary proceeding arose from Patterson’s representation of J. Pearl Bussey‑Morice in federal court, where Judge Mendoza found repeated vexatious conduct and referred Patterson to The Florida Bar.
A referee found three categories of misconduct in Bussey‑Morice: repeated, unfounded allegations of racial bias against judges/counsel/parties; misuse of an inadvertently faxed draft (kept and used despite being identified as sent in error); and persistent procedural violations that delayed litigation.
The referee recommended a 90‑day suspension (plus ethics/professionalism requirements and costs), reasoning much of the conduct overlapped temporally and substantively with Patterson’s earlier discipline.
The Florida Bar appealed the recommended sanction as too lenient and argued the referee erred in rejecting aggravating factors and in treating prior misconduct as mitigating; the Supreme Court of Florida reviewed and imposed a two‑year suspension, requiring ethics school, a professionalism workshop, and payment of costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether disciplining Patterson for Bussey‑Morice would double‑punish given his prior suspension	Bar: No; Bussey‑Morice misconduct is separate and was not punished by the prior suspension	Referee/Patterson: Yes; much of the misconduct occurred during the same time period and was already punished	Court: No double punishment — the prior suspension did not account for the separate Bussey‑Morice misconduct
Whether aggravating factors should have been found (prior disciplinary offenses, pattern, multiple offenses, substantial experience)	Bar: Aggravators apply because Patterson had prior discipline and repeated similar misconduct and distinct rule violations; he is experienced	Referee: Rejected most aggravators due to temporal overlap and other reasoning	Court: Referee erred; prior disciplinary offenses, pattern, multiple offenses, and substantial experience aggravators apply
Whether certain mitigators (remoteness of prior offenses; non‑referral by another judge) were appropriate	Bar: Remoteness and judge non‑referral are not mitigating given overlap and similarity of misconduct	Referee/Patterson: Prior misconduct was remote; Judge Honeywell’s non‑referral was relevant mitigation	Court: Rejected those mitigators as improperly applied
Appropriate sanction for the established misconduct (unfounded bias allegations, misuse of fax, delays)	Bar: Two‑year suspension appropriate given severity, repetition, and prior discipline	Referee: Ninety‑day suspension appropriate because prior discipline addressed much of same conduct; focused discipline on fax misuse	Court: Two‑year suspension imposed as incremental discipline for repeated, damaging misconduct

Key Cases Cited

Florida Bar v. Patterson, 257 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 2018) (prior Supreme Court disciplinary opinion addressing Patterson’s Faddis‑related misconduct)
Faddis v. City of Homestead, 157 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (describing Faddis litigation filings as a fraud on the court)
Bussey‑Morice v. Kennedy, [citation="657 F. App'x 909"] (11th Cir. 2016) (underlying civil rights litigation referenced in the disciplinary referral)
Fla. Bar v. Kinsella, 260 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 2018) (standard for reviewing referee findings of mitigation/aggravation)
Fla. Bar v. Norkin, 132 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2013) (pattern of misconduct and incremental sanctioning principles)
Fla. Bar v. Varner, 992 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2008) (remoteness of prior discipline is not mitigating when prior misconduct is similar)
Fla. Bar v. Bern, 425 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1982) (court increases discipline for cumulative misconduct)
Fla. Bar v. Altman, 294 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 2020) (illustration of incremental increases in suspension for repeated similar misconduct)