The Florida Bar v. Zana Holley Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838

Background

Dupee represented a wife in a 2010 dissolution; the wife removed $482,980.46 from a sole‑name credit‑union account and obtained a cashier’s check payable to the fictitious "Parenting Education Charitable Trust."
The check remained in the wife’s possession ~11 months, was never negotiated, and was redeposited shortly before trial; thus the funds remained the wife’s property.
Dupee served discovery responses and filed the wife’s initial financial affidavit that did not disclose the cashier’s check or the large cash asset; interrogatory answers and the affidavit were false or misleading.
Dupee delayed producing requested bank records and the cashier’s check despite a motion to compel and the request specifying production at opposing counsel’s office; she later produced documents and a corrected affidavit shortly before trial.
At the wife’s deposition, false testimony (about the donation and the amount) was given in Dupee’s presence; Dupee did not correct it on the record or take reasonable remedial measures. Dupee also took possession of coins claimed by the husband and failed to notify opposing counsel of receipt.
The referee found multiple ethics violations (candor, discovery abuse, dishonesty, mishandling property) and recommended a 90‑day suspension and two years’ probation; the Florida Supreme Court increased the sanction to a one‑year suspension and awarded Bar costs.

Issues

Issue	The Bar's Argument	Dupee's Argument	Held
Whether Dupee knowingly filed false financial affidavit and false discovery answers	Dupee knowingly withheld material financial information and submitted false statements	She assumed the wife had donated the funds to a trust and lacked actual knowledge of falsity	Court: competent substantial evidence supports referee that Dupee knew and acted knowingly; guilty of misconduct
Whether Dupee failed to produce documents and obstructed access to evidence	Dupee deliberately delayed/withheld documents despite court‑ordered discovery and place‑of‑production specification	Production issues were due to copying costs and opposing counsel’s lack of diligence	Court: refusal to produce at specified place and delay were deliberate; violated discovery and Rule 4‑3.4
Whether Dupee failed to correct false deposition testimony	Dupee knew testimony was false and had duty to take remedial measures, including disclosure	She feared being accused of coaching and tried to correct off the record; later produced accurate info before trial	Court: Referee correctly found she took no reasonable remedial action at deposition and therefore violated Rule 4‑3.3
Whether Dupee improperly received and failed to give notice of property claimed by another	Receipt of coins while aware of dispute required notice to claimant; nondisclosure violated trust‑property rules	She believed coins were wife’s separate property and denied knowledge of husband’s claim	Court: Once dispute was evident, Dupee had duty to notify opposing counsel; failure violated Rule 5‑1.1(e)‑(f)
Appropriate discipline	One‑year suspension warranted given knowing deceit, discovery obstruction, false filings, and case law calling for suspension	Discipline should be lesser (reprimand or no suspension) because misconduct was negligent and corrected before trial	Court: One‑year suspension imposed (effective 30 days) given seriousness and comparable precedents

Key Cases Cited

Florida Bar v. Miller, 863 So. 2d 231 (one‑year suspension where lawyer concealed awareness of document and permitted misleading testimony)
Florida Bar v. Cox, 794 So. 2d 1278 (suspension appropriate where a lawyer knowingly withheld material information from court/parties)
Florida Bar v. Brown, 905 So. 2d 76 (intentional misrepresentation to a court is serious misconduct; suspension standard)
Florida Bar v. Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555 (review standard for referee discipline recommendations)
Florida Bar v. Maynard, 672 So. 2d 530 (purposes of attorney discipline: protect public, punish/reform, deter)