The Florida Bar v. Letwin, 70 So. 3d 578

The Bar filed a complaint on December 23, 2009, alleging in August 2008 Letwin sent improper solicitation letters to over 900 Broward County part-time adult education teachers.
The letters urged recipients to join a purported class action against the Broward County School Board, with attached materials submitted as Composite Exhibit B.
About 50 recipients retained Letwin, based on statements in the solicitation that were inaccurate or misleading.
The letter did not disclose that it was an advertisement, and the attached contract was not marked as a sample; it also asserted express acceptance was required for recognition of a claim.
The letters omitted that recipients could hire any attorney, and the actions were found to be prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The referee found violations of Rules 3-4.2, 4-7.4(a), and 4-8.4(d), but not of 4-4.1, 4-8.4(a), or 4-8.4(c); the Florida Bar sought review, leading to a one-year suspension with conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Letwin violate 4-7.4(a) solicitation?	Bar: clearly violated solicitation rule.	Letwin: no true attorney-client relationship; letters were not solicitations meeting 4-7.4(a).	Guilty
Did Letwin commit false statements to a third party in violation of 4-4.1?	Bar: letters contained inaccurate facts inducing clients.	Letwin: statements were not knowingly false.	Guilty (rejected as to 4-4.1)
Did Letwin engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of 4-8.4(c)?	Bar: letter contained false statements to solicit clients.	Letwin: no intent to defraud; rhetoric misunderstood.	Guilty (as to 4-8.4(c))
Did Letwin violate 4-8.4(a) by violating or attempting to violate the rules of professional conduct?	Bar: violations of other rules imply violation of 4-8.4(a).	Letwin: not applicable if other findings reversed.	Guilty (consequence of other violations)
What is the appropriate sanction given prior misconduct and current acts?	Bar: harsher sanction warranted due to history; at least 90 days with enhanced supervision.	Letwin: public reprimand suffices.	One-year suspension with three years of probation and mandatory advertising workshop (plus costs)

Barrett v. Florida Bar, 897 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 2005) (discretion in sanctioning unethical solicitation; range from reprimand to disbarment)
Fla. Bar v. Wolfe, 759 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2000) (rehabilitative suspension for solicitation in tornado-damage cases)
Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1999) (standards for imposing lawyer sanctions)
Fla. Bar v. Anderson, 538 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1989) (deference to referee on sanctions with appellate review for reasonableness)
Florida Bar v. Letwin, 14 So.3d 243 (Fla. 2009) (prior disciplinary history and misconduct informing sanction)