The Florida Bar v. Ryan F. C. Mitchell
SC2023-0869
| Fla. | May 15, 2025Background
- Ryan F. C. Mitchell, a Florida attorney, pled no contest to two criminal misdemeanors (battery and criminal mischief) after assaulting his wife, fracturing her nose and bruising her eye, and throwing her phone into a pool during a domestic altercation witnessed by their three children.
- Mitchell’s probation required no contact with his wife, payment of restitution, completion of a Batterer's Intervention Program, and psychological evaluations; he was in full compliance at the time of disciplinary proceedings.
- The Florida Bar brought disciplinary proceedings against Mitchell for violating Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (rules 3-4.3 and 4-8.4(b)), alleging his conduct adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
- The referee recommended a public reprimand, continuation of private therapy, and payment of disciplinary costs, but the Bar argued a 90-day suspension was warranted.
- The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed whether a public reprimand was sufficient or a more severe sanction was needed, ultimately deciding on a harsher penalty than both the referee and the Bar recommended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bar) | Defendant's Argument (Mitchell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate Sanction for Criminal Misconduct | Public reprimand too lenient; 90-day suspension proper | Public reprimand sufficient given mitigation | Two-year rehabilitative suspension required |
| Applicable Sanctioning Standard | Standard 5.1(b) (suspension for criminal conduct) | Standard 5.1(c) (public reprimand) | 5.1(b) applies; misconduct warrants suspension |
| Weight of Mitigating/Aggravating Factors | Aggravation outweighed mitigation due to seriousness | Mitigation (no prior discipline, remorse, compliance) justifies leniency | Mitigation insufficient to avoid suspension |
| Restitution as Mitigation | Payments court-ordered, not voluntary; not mitigating | Paid restitution to victim, should count as mitigation | Court-ordered restitution not mitigating |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Bar v. Patterson, 257 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 2018) (Court's responsibility to determine appropriate disciplinary sanction)
- Florida Bar v. Scheinberg, 129 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2013) (Presumption of correctness for referee’s factual findings)
- Florida Bar v. Kinsella, 260 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 2018) (Three-year suspension appropriate for criminal conduct with mitigation)
- Florida Bar v. Maurice, 955 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2007) (Use of caselaw to guide sanction length determination)
- Florida Bar v. Lord, 433 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1983) (Professional discipline must deter similar violations)