Today, May 7, 2013, The Objective Review sent an email for inquiry to Attorney Gregory A. Crutchfield, Senior Attorney of Crutchfield & Wilson P.A., to inquire of the actions perpetrated by his partner Attorney Shari Jo Wilson. Shari Jo Wilson has conspired and participated in public corruption and actions under color of law for private agendas and gain. Previously the Father left messages for Gregory to contact him about the incidents listed in the inquiry. The Father previously filed in Federal Court and was asked to amend his petition to name all defendants.
The Objective Review / Joseph Kirk
Since has been trying to do just that despite all the obstacles and concealing evidence by the parties involved. Therefore, an email was sent to Attorney Gregory Crutchfield and also to various government entities.
Officer Maria Fernez will be contacted to attempt to get Sheriff Wayne Ivey's comments on the facts stated in that email.
According to Florida Bar Rule 4-5.1, Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer, a member of the bar who is a partner, proprietor, shareholder, member of a limited liability company, officer, director, or manager in an authorized business entity, as defined elsewhere in these rules, or who has supervisory authority over another lawyer in the law department of an enterprise or government agency, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the authorized business entity, enterprise, or government agency has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. A supervisory lawyer's duties include, Any lawyer in an authorized business entity, enterprise, or government agency having supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner, proprietor, shareholder, member of a limited liability company, officer, director, partner, or manager in an authorized business entity, as defined elsewhere in these rules, or has supervisory authority over another lawyer in the law department of an enterprise or government agency, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
Was Gregory Crutchfield aware?
Did he ignore the actions of his subordinate and ratify her actions?
An illegal act constitutes corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence. Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, though is not restricted to these activities.
Attorneys are officers of the court. There was a time in this country when anyone who held a public office was believed to be an honorable example to the people the were put in office to protect. That sense of respect and honor for our leaders appears to be in a serious decline. Morals and ethical soundness appear in value-driven civic institutions. The Culture of honor and dignity was born by putting loyalty to the public ahead of self-interest as defined by the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There will be no honor in public service without humility in public servants.
The Inquiry was as follows:
Subject: 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendment, Title 18 U.S.C. 241, Title 18 U.S.C. 242 Local Attorneys violating
Date: 5/8/13 1:01 am
To: info@CrutchfieldLaw.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Jacksonville@ic.fbi.gov, AskDOJ@usdoj.gov, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, ACAP@flabar.org, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, FCiaccio@flabar.org, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, DOS.SecretaryofState@DOS.MyFlorida.com, AdministrativeServices@DOS.MyFlorida.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Mark.Williams@DOS.MyFlorida.com, Christie.Burrus@DOS.MyFlorida.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Mr. Gregory A. Crutchfield,
This inquiry is directed to you, as the senior partner of your law firm, due to the actions of Attorney Shari Jo Wilson. I have left message after message for you to contact me and have yet to receive any contact from you about this inquiry so I am now emailing you as a matter for public record. Below you will find a few of the applicable Laws, policies, rules and regulations surrounding the events of this inquiry for your review. This inquiry is an attempt to clarify and inform you of the actions that have taken place resulting in my suffrage. Your prompt and timely response is now required for clarity.
Attorney Shari Jo Wilson, November 9th, 2010, was in the Honorable Judge Charlie Crawford's Court room located in Viera, Florida. A recording of that public inquiry certified as a public document reveals her stating she did not care what her client wants she doesn't get paid enough in these types of cases. It would appear she has violated Florida Bar Rules Rule 4-1.1, Rule 4-1.2, Rule 4-1.3, Rule 4-1.4, Rule 4-1.7, Rule 4-3.2 and Rule 4-8.4.
Furthermore, she has been witnessed in stating the petitioner was in control of the witness list and that the respondent, Joseph Kirk, could not bring his witnesses or evidence to court. She also stated, as a conflict of interest, she was good friends with opposing counsel Daniel Freyberg. Attorney Shari Jo Wilson also, before trial, stated she did not want to represent the respondent in the court of appeals. This implies she already planned on losing the case after being asked to dismiss herself by her client due to her non-representation.
The question of non-representation can be easily established as the facts are clear. Shari Wilson refused to contact her client and inform him of any current motions/petitions or even to discuss his case as required by Florida Bar Rule 4-1.4. This can be proven by the County Sheriff Land Records Office being requested by Mr. Kirk every couple of weeks in person to check the record for anything new or that may look important. Her previous statement as to not caring what her client's wishes were due to economical standing, as also shown in Title 18 section 242 of the United States Code, are not only inappropriate but violates most of the laws, rules, procedures, constitutional rights and policies listed below.
The father was court ordered to have visitation at least twice a week with great emphasis on 'at least'. To date, since November of 2011, father has not received that visitation nor was any motion for contempt filed by her as required to address that grievance. The case was a private petition by the petitioner for the purposes of an illegal adoption, as related cases also show the same purpose, and the petitioner's attorney responded to the Florida Bar that no one was attempting to adopt Joseph Kirk's daughter. After being faxed that information she has failed to address the court about the fraud nor informed the Florida Bar.
Shari Wilson's response to the Florida bar states she was zealously representing her client Joseph Kirk. None of the above was represented to the tribunal despite the astounding fact it was a private petition for an adoption. Petitioner's counsel, Attorney Scarlett Davidson, was served a subpoena in line with obtaining a deposition on the fraud. Subsequently, Attorney Scarlett Davidson had him arrested to avoid that legal process.
Attorney Shari Wilson refused to represent her client and instead concealed witnesses and evidence. This can be proven on record by her objecting to her own client, Joseph Kirk, rebutting the petitioner's claim by testifying to when the child lived with him and the mother. She also allowed witness tampering without addressing the retaliatory actions of Yvonne Howard and her Attorney, Scarlett Davidson. Attorney Scarlett Davidson, after having Joseph Kirk arrested under color of law, then amended her private petition to terminate the respondent's, father, parental rights for him being in jail due to her actions. This is not only clear witness tampering and fabricating evidence but it would also appear to fall within Title 18 section 241 and 242 of the United States Code.
Shari Wilson refused to bring up relevant facts to aid the petitioner and her Attorney Scarlett Davidson with their Fraud which clearly equates conspiring to deprive rights. This also is shown on record after the child was abducted in violation of Florida Statutes, found as fact, Petitioner and Attorney Scarlett Davidson appeared in court to state they had no problem with Mr. Kirk while filing a frivolous document to adopt his child which according to the Florida Bar: Scarlett Davidson claims is not filed.
Furthermore, it is a violation of various State and Federal laws to conceal, tamper, alter or attempt to conceal, tamper, alter or fabricate evidence and testimony when an official proceeding, investigation or inquiry is commenced or known to about to commence. Shari Wilson stated she would file the appeal and dismiss herself from the case and stated the appeal would only look over part of the case file instead of its entirety. However, this is Known and found to be inconsistent, as the higher court would require the entire case file and clearly shows her intent and the basis of her previous actions.
Shari Wilson appeared in court and simulated legal process, without Jurisdiction as the record shows, the original petition was not served, filed, signed or sworn by the petitioner in fact it is not even a petition as it contains the same case number as the dependency. Florida Bar Rule 4-3.2 applies with other various laws, rules, procedures and policies.
Petitioner Yvonne Howard and Scarlett Davidson, conspired to deprive rights, as on day one Yvonne Howard issued multiple conflicting statements on her petition for temporary custody, with a cover sheet of 'Chapter 63' filed April 2010, for the purposes of an adoption. Though the petitioner's Attorney, Scarlett Davidson, offered to testify for her client, due to her client's continuing perjury, the facts remain true.
It is a finding of fact Yvonne Howard was hiding the child without any court order, June 17th 2010, at the same time of 4 witnesses including 2 Attorneys telling the court Yvonne Howard did it again in violation of the current court order.
Attorney Scarlett Davidson, June 17th 2010, told the court the mother had not asked for her court ordered visitation, after the child was abducted, and 4 witnesses told the court, including 2 Attorneys, they had even contacted Attorney Scarlett Davidson about the visitation Scarlett Davidson just told the court no one had asked for on record (according to Shari Wilson perjury altering facts and fabricating evidence to confuse or hinder the tribunal is not anything important). Despite the full article, including massive amounts of supreme court case law, stating cases representing fraud upon the court should be dismissed with prejudice.
Trial was stopped by a non-legal document November 9th 2010 to prevent the defense. Joseph Kirk, from presenting this information, in violation of Constitutional Rights, Laws, procedures and Title 18 U.S.C Section 241 and 242, after petitioner had already put on their petition resulting in violating due process. Scarlett Davidson's words on record, as the record shows during Ex-Parte communication, were clearly of the effect that she wanted to stop Trial and supplant a new petition/motion although everyone in the room testified to not having a copy nor it being filed or served. This all before the Defendant, representing himself, had even shown up which equaled ex-parte communication and conspiracy to deprive rights by petitioner and her Attorneys while concealing evidence and violating Title 18 section 242 U.S.C.
Yvonne Howard after, May 5th 2010, hiding the child for over half a month, resulting in a missing child report, testified to not having any problems with Mr. Kirk, May 21st 2010.
In Fact, June 28th 2010, Yvonne Howard testified, Joseph Kirk never harmed the child (Motion for cessation of father's visitation conspiracy to deprive rights).
The June 28th 2010 motion, which received a temporary order, was never fully heard, as it was supposed to be heard at the trial that was always continued by Scarlett Davidson to prevent the defense from exposing the facts( Extreme emphasis on November 9th 2010).
Furthermore, and of the greatest Importance, on November 9th 2010, Attorney Scarlett Davidson, while simulating legal process to conceal facts and evidence, told the court no one wanted to keep the child from the parents and that 'they', as she stated 'we', only wanted to terminate the parents rights and give them visitation.
However, in 2012, Attorney Scarlett Davidson told the Florida Bar in an official investigation that no one was attempting to adopt the child.
Furthermore, Attorney Scarlett Davidson & Yvonne Howard told the court, June 28th 2010, that they were not GPS tracking Mr. Kirk, However, after Scarlett Davidson retaliated against Mr. Kirk, by having him arrested for issuing a subpoena for her deposition about her fraud, she told the court under oath, she in fact conspired with Yvonne Howard to stalk Mr. Kirk by means of illegal G.P.S. tracking a law-abiding citizen, but later,July of 2012, told the Florida Bar she did not know of any GPS tracking device or what Mr. Kirk was talking about.
So in summation a fraudulent petition was filed containing perjury as it was under oath. Fraud was brought up and Attorney Scarlett Davidson concealed her fraud by attempting to abate it with a new petition on the same issue. Fraud was brought up again and Attorney Scarlett Davidson then attempted to 'abate' it with a non-legal and incomplete document to conceal evidence in mid trial to start another case again on the same issue. All the while preventing presentation of witnesses and evidence or the chance for the parents to present there side or stop the fraud. Then Attorney Shari Wilson aided in restricting access to court as witnessed by multiple witnesses and by her own words on record.
Your Questions, concerns and/or comments on these recorded facts are requested with the utmost respect and diligence as soon as possible as I have requested from your secretary on multiple occasions that you contact me about Mrs. Wilson.
The Objective Review
Brevard County Courts Examiner
GNA - Politics & Legal Correspondent
SECTION 21.Access to courts.The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
SECTION 12.Searches and seizures.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
SECTION 9.Due process.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
SECTION 5.Right to assemble.The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.
SECTION 4.Freedom of speech and press.Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.
SECTION 2.Basic rights.All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
SECTION 1.Political power.All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.
According to the United States Constitution, Article VI, 'The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Florida Statute 843.0855
Criminal actions under color of law or through use of simulated legal process.
(1)As used in this section:
(a)The term legal process means a document or order issued by a court or filed or recorded for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction or representing a claim against a person or property, or for the purpose of directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. Legal process includes, but is not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order.
(b)The term person means an individual, public or private group incorporated or otherwise, legitimate or illegitimate legal tribunal or entity, informal organization, official or unofficial agency or body, or any assemblage of individuals.
(c)The term public officer means a public officer as defined by s. 112.061.
(d)The term public employee means a public employee as defined by s. 112.061.
(2)Any person who deliberately impersonates or falsely acts as a public officer or tribunal, public employee or utility employee, including, but not limited to, marshals, judges, prosecutors, sheriffs, deputies, court personnel, or any law enforcement authority in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3)Any person who simulates legal process, including, but not limited to, actions affecting title to real estate or personal property, indictments, subpoenas, warrants, injunctions, liens, orders, judgments, or any legal documents or proceedings, knowing or having reason to know the contents of any such documents or proceedings or the basis for any action to be fraudulent, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4)Any person who falsely under color of law attempts in any way to influence, intimidate, or hinder a public officer or law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official duties by means of, but not limited to, threats of or actual physical abuse or harassment, or through the use of simulated legal process, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(5)(a)Nothing in this section shall make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer or legal tribunal which is performed under lawful authority.
(b)Nothing in this section shall prohibit individuals from assembling freely to express opinions or designate group affiliation or association.
(c)Nothing in this section shall prohibit or in any way limit a persons lawful and legitimate access to the courts or prevent a person from instituting or responding to legitimate and lawful legal process.
Florida Bar Rules
Rule 4-1.1 Competence
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
Rule 4-1.2 Scope of Representation
(a) Lawyer to Abide by Client's Decisions
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to make or accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial, and whether the client will testify.
(c) Limitation of Objectives of Representation
If not prohibited by law or rule, a lawyer and client may agree to limit the objectives or scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client consents in writing after consultation. If the attorney and client agree to limit the scope of the representation, the lawyer shall advise the client regarding applicability of the rule prohibiting communication with a represented person.
(d) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct
A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent. However, a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.
Rule 4-1.3 Diligence
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Rule 4-1.4 Communication
(a) Informing Client of Status of Representation
A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
(b) Duty to Explain Matters to Client
A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Rule 4-1.7 Conflict of Interest: General rule
(a) Representing Adverse Interests.
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to the interests of another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the lawyer's responsibilities to and relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.
(b) Duty to Avoid Limitation on Independent Professional Judgment.
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the lawyer's exercise of independent professional judgment in the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyer's own interest, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after consultation.
Rule 4-3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Rule 4-3.2 Expediting Litigation
A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Delay should not be indulged merely for the convenience of the advocates or for the purpose of frustrating an opposing partys attempt to obtain rightful redress or repose. It is not a justification that similar conduct is often tolerated by the bench and bar. The question is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay. Realizing financial or other benefit from otherwise improper delay in litigation is not a legitimate interest of the client.
Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
(a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose.
A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;
(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(4) permit any witness, including a criminal defendant, to offer testimony or other evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and thereafter comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.
(b) Extent of Lawyer's Duties.
The duties stated in subdivision (a) continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6.
(c) Evidence Believed to Be False.
A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
Rule 4-3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
A lawyer shall not:
(a) 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 reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding; nor counsel or assist another person to do any such act.
(b) fabricate evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness, except a lawyer may pay a witness reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending or testifying at proceedings; a reasonable, noncontingent fee for the professional services of an expert witness; and reasonable compensation to reimburse a witness for the loss of compensation incurred by reason of preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings.
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.
(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.
(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of an accused.
(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:
(1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client, and
(2) it is reasonable to believe that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.
(g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
(h) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present disciplinary charges under these rules solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Rule 4-3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal
(a) Influencing Decision Maker.
A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other decision maker except as permitted by law or the rules of court.
(b) Communication with Judge or Official.
In an adversary proceeding a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending except:
(1) in the course of the official proceeding in the cause;
(2) in writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to the opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer;
(3) orally upon notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer; or
(4) as otherwise authorized by law.
Rule 4-3.7 Lawyer as Witness
(a) When Lawyer May Testify.
A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client except where:
(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
(2) the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony;
(3) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or
(4) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.
(b) Other Members of Law Firm as Witnesses.
A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by rule 4-1.7 or 4-1.9.
Rule 4-4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.
Rule 4-4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person or knowingly use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
Rule 4-5.1 Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer
(a) Partners' Duties Concerning Adherence to Rules of Professional Conduct.
A member of the bar who is a partner, proprietor, shareholder, member of a limited liability company, officer, director, or manager in an authorized business entity, as defined elsewhere in these rules, or who has supervisory authority over another lawyer in the law department of an enterprise or government agency, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the authorized business entity, enterprise, or government agency has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(b) Supervisory Lawyer's Duties.
Any lawyer in an authorized business entity, enterprise, or government agency having supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 4-5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law
A lawyer shall not:
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction
Rule 4-8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) Reporting Misconduct of Other Lawyers.
A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) Reporting Misconduct of Judges.
A lawyer having knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
Rule 4-8.4 Misconduct
A lawyer shall not:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(g) fail to respond, in writing, to any inquiry by bar counsel or a disciplinary agency when bar counsel or the agency is conducting an investigation into the lawyer's conduct. A written response shall be made:
(1) within 15 days of the date of the initial written investigative inquiry by bar counsel, grievance committee, or board of govenors;
(2) within 10 days of the date of any follow-up written investigative inquiries by bar counsel, grievance committee, or board of govenors;
(3) within the time stated in any supeona issued under these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (without additional time allowed for mailing);
(4) as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or order of the referee in matter assigned to a referee; and
(5) as provided in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure or order of the Supreme Court of Florida for matters pending action by that court.
This has been another Objective Review.