Clarifying Ethical Boundaries for Departing Associates: Unauthorized Filings, Client Contact & Discovery Obligations under Florida Bar Rules
A Comprehensive Commentary on The Florida Bar v. Alexa Martinez, No. SC2023-0421 (Fla. June 19, 2025)

1. Introduction

In The Florida Bar v. Alexa Martinez, the Supreme Court of Florida was asked to review a referee’s report finding the respondent—an inexperienced associate who left her first law-firm job after four months—guilty of assorted ethical violations and recommending a ten-day suspension plus public reprimand. Both the Bar and Ms Martinez sought review, challenging (respectively) the leniency and the accuracy of the referee’s findings. The Court ultimately lengthened the suspension to 90 days, clarified the reach of several key Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and—most importantly—articulated a sharper doctrinal framework for lawyers who:

• depart from a law firm and wish to contact former clients (Rule 4-5.8);
• file notices of appearance without iron-clad client authority (Rules 4-3.1, 4-3.3, 4-8.4(c)&(d));
• handle disputed firm property or discovery devices (Rule 4-3.4); and
• seek tactical delay through “notices of unavailability” or discovery stonewalling (Rules 4-3.4(c), 4-8.4(c)&(d)).

Because the opinion walks through each rule with uncommon specificity—and overrules the referee on multiple counts—it sets a useful precedent for the Florida disciplinary landscape, particularly for early-career lawyers navigating firm departures.

2. Summary of the Judgment

After de novo review, the Court:

• Affirmed guilt findings for mishandling a firm USB drive (Rules 4-3.4, 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d));
• Rejected additional liability under Rule 4-5.8 for contacting clients, holding that Martinez had engaged in bona fide but unsuccessful joint-letter negotiations as the rule requires;
• Added new violations—Rules 4-3.1, 4-3.3, and 4-8.4(c)—for filing unauthorized notices of appearance and misrepresenting authority to tribunals;
• Added further violations—Rules 4-3.4(c), 4-8.4(c), 4-8.4(d)—for abusing “notices of unavailability” and violating court orders regarding depositions;
• Enhanced discipline from a ten-day suspension to a 90-day suspension, emphasizing honesty, candor to tribunals, and respect for court orders;
• Assessed costs of $7,465 against Martinez.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Florida Bar v. Alters, 260 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2018) & Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2000) – reiterated the narrow scope of appellate review over factual findings.
• Florida Bar v. Patterson, 257 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 2018) – cited for the standard that findings “must be sufficient under applicable rules.”
• Florida Bar v. Forrester, 818 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2002) – 60-day suspension for hiding deposition exhibit; used as benchmark in calibrating suspension length for dishonest conduct.
• Florida Bar v. James, 329 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 2021) – 91-day suspension for repeated dishonesty and discovery abuses; anchored the Court’s choice of a 90-day suspension.
• Florida Bar v. Marcellus, 249 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 2018) – 18-month suspension for prolonged disobedience of discovery orders; highlighted how interference with litigation aggravates sanctions.
• Florida Bar v. Rotstein, 835 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2002) – authority for awarding transcript costs; applied to cost assessment against Martinez.

By aligning Martinez’s conduct along a continuum defined in Forrester, James, and Marcellus, the Court justified moving beyond the referee’s ten-day recommendation and settling on a mid-range, rehabilitative 90-day suspension.

3.2 Core Legal Reasoning

1. Mishandling Firm Property – The deletion of USB contents obstructed evidence in reasonably foreseeable civil litigation, squarely violating Rule 4-3.4(a). That dishonest deletion, plus the subsequent return of an empty device, separately breached Rule 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty) and Rule 4-8.4(d) (prejudice to administration of justice).
2. Client Contact under Rule 4-5.8 – The rule requires an attempt to negotiate a joint communication with the firm first. Emails showed Martinez did attempt such negotiation; once it collapsed, unilateral contact was permissible. Thus no Rule 4-5.8 violation occurred—even though the conduct was “minor misconduct” under Rule 3-4.3.
3. Unauthorized Notices of Appearance – Filing on behalf of clients without valid retainer breached:
   • Rule 4-3.1 – no non-frivolous basis;
   • Rule 4-3.3 – false statement to tribunal (authority implied by filing);
   • Rule 4-8.4(c) – dishonesty to both court and opposing counsel;
   • Rule 4-8.4(d) – resulting delays, motions to enforce settlements, and escrow of funds prejudiced justice.
4. Abuse of “Notices of Unavailability” & Discovery Orders – Persistent filings to avoid deposition, combined with missed appearances and failure to produce documents, violated:
   • Rule 4-3.4(c) – knowing disobedience of tribunal orders;
   • Rule 4-8.4(c) – deceptive use of procedural device;
   • Rule 4-8.4(d) – interference with civil proceedings.
5. Sanctions Framework – The Court walked through four Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (5.1(b), 6.1(b), 6.2(b), 7.1(b)), concluding each pointed to suspension as the baseline when dishonesty intersects with interference in litigation.
6. Aggravation & Mitigation – The Court accepted most aggravators (dishonest motive, pattern, deceptive practices, refusal to admit wrong) and most mitigators (no prior discipline, emotional issues, inexperience, other sanctions), but struck “unreasonable delay” because Martinez’s own tactics caused the delay.

3.3 Likely Impact on Future Cases

• Departure Letters & Rule 4-5.8 – The opinion clarifies that bona fide but failed negotiations with a former firm satisfy the “attempt to negotiate” prerequisite, shielding the departing lawyer from automatic violation.
• Unauthorized Appearances – The Court’s explicit coupling of Rules 4-3.1, 4-3.3, 4-8.4(c), and 4-8.4(d) for a single act (unauthorized filing) provides a doctrinal roadmap; future referees will likely apply the same quartet where a filing falsely asserts client authority.
• Discovery Abuses by Young Lawyers – The Court declined to excuse rule breaches based on “confusion” or “inexperience” when court orders are flouted. This limits the mitigating weight of youth in discovery-abuse cases.
• Sanction Calibration – By positioning a brief but rehabilitative 90-day suspension between the 60-day (Forrester) and 91-day (James) precedents, the Court signals that early-career dishonesty accompanied by genuine mitigation will trigger a suspension in the 60- to 120-day range, not mere reprimand.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Referee

A senior lawyer appointed to conduct evidentiary hearings in a Bar disciplinary case and to recommend findings and sanctions to the Supreme Court of Florida.

Rule 4-5.8 (Departing Lawyer Rule)

Defines how lawyers leaving a firm may notify firm clients; requires first attempting to negotiate a joint client letter.

Notice of Appearance

A filing informing a court that an attorney represents a party. Filing it without a client’s authorization misleads the court and opposing counsel.

Notice of Unavailability

An informal filing (largely creatures of custom) signaling that counsel cannot attend hearings during certain dates. Misuse to avoid depositions can be sanctionable.

Competent, Substantial Evidence

The standard of proof the Court uses when reviewing a referee’s factual findings; evidence that reasonable minds could accept as adequate.

Aggravating/Mitigating Factors

Circumstances that respectively increase or decrease the severity of discipline under the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.

Suspension Lengths

Short suspensions (≤90 days) – lawyer automatically reinstated after term.
Rehabilitative suspensions (>90 days) – require petition for reinstatement and proof of fitness.

5. Conclusion

The Florida Bar v. Alexa Martinez is a cautionary tale and a doctrinal milestone. The Court:

• Reaffirmed strict duties of honesty, evidence preservation, and candor—especially when young lawyers contemplate aggressive moves after leaving a firm.
• Clarified that Rule 4-5.8 does not bar unilateral client contact after bona fide negotiations fail, but misconduct may still arise under other rules.
• Explicitly tied unauthorized court filings to violations of Rules 4-3.1, 4-3.3, 4-8.4(c)&(d), creating a template for future prosecutions.
• Sent a strong signal that use of procedural devices to obstruct discovery, even out of inexperience, will be met with meaningful suspensions.
• Enhanced the importance of Standards 5.1, 6.1, 6.2 and 7.1 in sanction calibration and trimmed back over-liberal application of “delay” mitigation when the respondent caused the delay.

Going forward, Florida lawyers—especially those early in their careers—must treat firm property, client authority, and court orders with meticulous care. The Court has made clear that even “minor” missteps intertwined with dishonesty can quickly escalate from reprimand territory to multi-month suspensions.