The Florida Bar v. Rita Horwitz Altman, 294 So.3d 844

The Florida Bar filed a petition for contempt alleging Rita Horwitz Altman failed to timely respond to multiple official Bar/grievance‑committee inquiries about a 2016 ineffective‑assistance complaint.
Investigating member Scott Weiss sent follow‑up requests (certified mail and email); Altman admitted receiving them but delayed responses, citing family medical emergencies (son’s procedure; elderly mother’s hospitalization) and fear; she ultimately responded after enforcement steps began.
Altman told the grievance committee and the Court she was “the only child living in Florida” responsible for her mother’s care; at the referee hearing she admitted that statement was inaccurate and characterized herself instead as her mother’s primary caregiver.
The referee found violations of Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4‑8.4(g) (failure to respond to official inquiry), several aggravating factors (prior discipline, multiple offenses, substantial experience), and mitigating factors (personal/emotional problems, remorse, reputation, remediation efforts, remoteness of prior offenses).
The referee recommended a public reprimand and five years’ probation with conditions; the Bar sought disbarment. The Supreme Court of Florida approved guilt findings and aggravation/mitigation but increased discipline to a three‑year suspension, imposed costs ($3,451.11), and set a 30‑day delay before suspension to permit wind‑down of practice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Altman violated Rule 4‑8.4(g) by failing to respond to Bar inquiries	Bar: Altman failed to timely, writtenly respond to multiple official investigative inquiries	Altman: Delays were caused by family medical crises, misunderstanding, and fear; she eventually responded and showed remorse	Court: Approved referee — Altman violated 4‑8.4(g) (failure to timely respond)
Whether Altman made deceptive statements during the disciplinary process	Bar: Altman misrepresented family circumstances to minimize culpability	Altman: Claimed she was primary caregiver and later corrected testimony; characterized misstatements as imprecise rather than deliberately false	Court: Found the statements inaccurate and an attempt to minimize culpability; treated deception as a significant aggravating consideration
Appropriate sanction given misconduct and prior discipline	Bar: Prior related discipline and repeated failures warrant disbarment	Altman: Referee’s recommended public reprimand + probation acceptable given mitigating circumstances and remedial steps	Court: Disapproved reprimand/probation; imposed three‑year suspension (30 days before effective) and costs
Recovery of Bar costs	Bar: Seek costs of proceeding	Altman: No successful objection to costs reported	Court: Awarded The Florida Bar costs of $3,451.11

Fla. Bar v. Picon, 205 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 2016) (scope of Court’s review of referee’s recommended discipline)
Fla. Bar v. Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1989) (Court’s ultimate responsibility to determine appropriate sanction)
Fla. Bar v. Behm, 41 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2010) (applying Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions)
Florida Bar v. Bloom, 632 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1994) (noting trend toward stronger sanctions)
Fla. Bar v. Parrish, 241 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 2018) (illustrating movement toward harsher discipline)
Fla. Bar v. Fortunato, 788 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2001) (deceptive conduct in disciplinary proceedings is a significant aggravator)
Fla. Bar v. Walkden, 950 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2007) (incremental escalation of sanctions for repeated similar misconduct)