Read instructions on the attached file. please read and follow instruction as listed.

This is the grounds for an unauthorized practice of law as his legal dealings in Florida went beyond mere legal support and encroached on simply practicing law in Florida while not attaining certain requirements. Secondly, Cooper v. Paris, 413 So.2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) was used to determine that the general rule is subject to exception that where the parties are not in pari delicto, the innocent party may recover. Therefore, Vista Designs has a right to reimbursement for the monetary amount that was paid to Silverman for legal fees. STATE of Florida , Petitioner, v. Michael BRANHAM, Respondent. State v. Branham , 952 So. 2d 618 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) Procedural History: The respondent who had been indicted for murder, filed to exercise lawyer -client privilege . The Circuit Court , Hardee County entered an order allowing to exercise privilege. The State filed petition for certiorari review, which was granted, and the district Court of Appeal held that lawyer -client privilege was inapplicable. Facts Michael Branham who was indicted for the murder of his wife sought out lawyer -client privilege after it was stated in a sworn statement by family friend and practicing lawyer, Kelly, that he was going to kill his wife to her prior to his indictment. Several months before the death took place, Kelly disclosed that he was a friend to both M ichael and his wife and that she would ac t as a “go - between” and would help them in resolving their marital difference yet made it clear that he would not represent either of them in a divorce proceeding. In a discussion between Kelly and Michael which ens ued during a social visit, the respondent had asked Kelly whether he was his lawyer or not and Kelly responded by saying “sure”. After that question was answered by Kelly, Michael declared that he was going to kill his wife. Once the threat was made, Kelly responded in a manner that suggested he was crazy and was fulling against what he was planning. Issue 1) What constitutes a lawyer -client privilege relationship ? 2) Was lawyer -client privilege initiated once the respondent specifically asked if he was his lawy er? Rule of Law F.S.A. § 90.502 are the statutes governing lawyer -client privilege and state that (1) (b) a “client” is any person, public officer, corporation, association, or other organization or entity, whether public or private , who consults with a lawyer with the purpose of obtaining legal services or who is rendered legal services by a lawyer . F.S.A . § 90.502(4)(a) which states that there is no lawyer - client privilege when the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew to be as fraud or crime. Decision /Holding Trial court erred in their determination that the lawyer -client privilege applied, petition by the State was granted. Legal Reasoning The court determined that no legal services were provided by the practicing attorney which failed to meet the criteria needed to emp loy the lawyer -client privilege. The statements made between both Kelly and the accused were not prominent enough to establish communication that would enable said privilege. Also, the court found that Branham was not seeking legal advice when he communica ted to Kelly that he was going to kill his wife and was seeking validation to do it when he stated that to Kelly. Such statement would also eliminate grounds for lawyer -client privilege. The FLORIDA BAR , Complainant, v. Kelsay Dayon PATTERSON , Respondent. October 19, 2018 Fla. Bar v. Patterson , 257 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 2018) Procedural Hisotry Florida Bar brought forth an attorney disciplinary action alleging the violation of several Bar Rules by Kelsay Patterson in the representation of Johanna Fad dis in numerous different cases that became dependent upon one another . A challenge of the recommendations made by referee were to be sent to the Court for review on the grounds of no guilt . A suspension was ordered based on the grounds of violating duty of loyalty to a client and disparaging remarks of a judge. Facts Attorney, Kelsay Dayon Patterson had been accused of violating several Florida Bar Rules which ultimately led to his suspension. Patterson was representing Faddis in a civil action which alleged invasion of privacy against the City of Homestead, the council members, and an investigative firm. In November 2012, a decision was decided on the civil case that Patterson was representing Faddis in, striking the pleadings that were e ntered based on perjury committed awarding final judgement in favor of the city . Inconsistencies were found in Faddis’s testimony between cases that Patterson was representing both of, attorney should have been aware of such testimonial inconsistencies. Sanctions were imposed against Patterson and Faddis . In September of 2013, sent the presiding judge in the case a strongly worded letter claiming that the outcome of the case was influenced by politics and influential members of the community. In December 2013 entered final judgment of $160,000 in attorney fees to be split equally against Patterson and Faddis to which Patterson appealed on behalf of Faddis . Per the recommendations of violations completed by referee, Patterson was found in violation of Bar Ru le 3 -4.3 yet not on Bar Rules 4 - 1.7, 4 -8.2(a), and 4 -8.4(d). These determinations sought review when a notice of intent was entered by The Bar based off the recommendations by referee. Disciplinary recommendations by the referee included an admonishment w ith one year of probation. Issue 1) Are the facts of the case consistent with a violation of Bar Rules regarding a conflict of interest? Rule of Law Bar Rule 4 -1.7 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, Fla. Bar 4 -1.7(a)(2) which explicitly prohibits representation of a client if there is a substantial risk that the representation will be materially lim its by the lawyer’s own personal interests. Decision/Holding The Court found Patterson in violation, suspension of one year was decided. Legal Reasoning The Court determined that based on Patterson ’s testimony regarding the appeal on Faddis behalf , is that it created a clear and substantial risk of materially limiting Patterson ’s independent judgement and loyalty to Faddis regardless of if the benefit from the appeal was not in Patterson’s favor. Such circumstances required Patterson to obtain Faddis in formed consent to continue representing her which there is no documentation of. Given the significant financial interest that was dependent on the outcome of the appeals that were entered by Patterson, the determination was clear that there was a conflict of interest. Suspension is appropriate as Patterson knowingly engaged in conduct that violates the ethical duty of loyalty that the client is owed under Bar Rules. The STATE of Florida , Appellant, v. Steven FALK , Appellee. State v. Falk , 724 So. 2d 146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) Procedural History An attorney, the defendant, was charged with unlawfully soliciting representation of persons injure in motor vehicle accident for the purpose of filing motor vehicle or personal injury benefits claim. The defendant moved to dismiss. The Circuit Court for Dade County granted motion and an appeal was made by the State. Facts Steven Falk, the defendant, had been charged with the unlawful solicitation of business relating to the representation of persons injured in a motor vehicle accident for the purpose of filing under a tort claim or claim for personal injury protection benef its. The defendant challenged the statute that was being used for the charge alleging it violated the Equal Protection Clause and infringed upon his rights under the First Amendment. The trial court based their decision of dismissal due to the States failu re to specify the acts that were committed that violated the statute in question. The State appealed. Issue 1) Do the statutes in question violate The Equal Protection Clause and the rights given to persons under the First Amendment? Rule of Law Case prece dent confirms that the United States Supreme Court has held that a State may completely prohibit “in person” solicitation by an attorney without running afoul of the first Amendment; Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978) . F.S.A § 817.234 8(b) states that a lawyer may not, at any time after 60 days solicit have elapsed from the occurrence of a motor vehicle accident, solicit, or cause to be solicited any business from a person involved in a motor vehicle accident by any means, for the purpose of making motor vehicle tort claims or claims for person injury protection benefits. Decision /Holding Reversed and remanded. Legal Reasoning On the claims of violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause the Court found that the allegations were rational by the State , and the basis exists for those who solicit motor vehicle claims. The statute is not unconstitutional. Although the State did not provide sufficient evidence summarizing the act or acts that were committed by the defendant, the alleged facts that were given should not have been dismissed based on the case law and statutes. The trial court erred. THE FLORIDA BAR , Complainant, v. David Samuel NICNICK , Respondent. The Fla. Bar v. Nicnick , 963 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2007) Procedural History Florida State Bar sought a disciplinary hearing against an attorney for alleged professional misconduct. Facts A complaint was filed by the Florida Bar against the respondent , David Samuel Nicnick alleging violations oof misconduct. A case in which Nicnick represented a mother involv ing child support obligations. The mother was approached by the mother -in-law’s per sonal assistant stating that she wanted to settle by litigations. Nicnick was aware of this interaction and wrote an outline for a settlement agreement. The personal assistant delivered the settlement agreement with a signature of the mother -in-law. Simult aneously , legal representation was being sought by the personal assistant by Nicnack and his law partner on automobile theft conducted against said mother -in-law of the settlement agreement case. The settlement agreement case was delayed on Niknicks behalf claiming he wanted to wait till the criminal case was resolved ; Nicnick did not inform his partner or the opposing counsel . 6 months later, in the civil case, the mother -in-law denied giving her signature, yet the trial court ruled that the mother and mo ther -in-law entered into a valid settlement agreement. Issue 1) Did Nicnick uphold his duty of representation to his client? 2) What Florida Bar Rules were violated? Rule of Law Florida Bar Rule 4 -3.4(a) concludes that a lawyer shall no t unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonable should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding; nor cou nsel or assist another person to do any such act. And Florida Bar Rule 4 -8.4(c) which confirms that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Decision /Holding Nicnick will be suspended for 91 days, co mplete a minimum of 10 hours in ethics Continuing Legal Education courses within six months of decision, and a payment of $3,711.56 to The Florida Bar. Legal Reasoning The Court determined that the concealment of the settlement agreement in the civil proceeding by Nicnick was unlawful regardless of alleged claim that he concealed it because he was unsure of its authenticity. Rule 4 -3.4(a) serves a purpose of creating fai r competition within the system and seeks to ensure the opposing counsels right to obtain relevant evidence. Any other factors that contributed to Nicn icks decision to conceal the agreement were not of his own interpretation to make. The Court held that mi sconduct constituted a suspension.