THE FLORIDA BAR
v.
LEE DAVID SARKIN & THE FLORIDA BAR V. DREW MARK LEVITT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Bar brought disciplinary proceedings against two attorneys, Lee David Sarkin and Drew Mark Levitt, for violations of Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The Florida Supreme Court disapproved the agreed consent judgments proposing an eighteen-month suspension for each attorney and instead imposed a three-year suspension, requiring the parties to accept this disposition or face a hearing before the referee.
The Court held that a three-year suspension for each attorney is the appropriate sanction, disapproving the parties' stipulated eighteen-month suspension. The Court gave the parties 30 days to accept this disposition through revised consent judgments or face scheduled hearings before the referee within 90 days.
[1] A court may disapprove a referee's report accepting a consent judgment and conditional guilty plea in a disciplinary proceeding.
[2] A court may impose a disciplinary sanction different from that agreed upon by the parties in a consent judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Reports of Referee, Consent Judgments, and the Stipulations, filed with this Court on May 16, 2025, are hereby disapproved. The Court would instead impose a three-year suspension in each case”
Establishes that the Court rejected the parties' agreed stipulation and imposed enhanced discipline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSarkin and Levitt were both long-standing members of The Florida Bar with over thirty years of membership and no prior disciplinary records. The refer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conditional Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2025
The Florida Bar, Complainant(s) V. Lee David Sarkin, Respondent(s)
The Florida Bar, Complainant(s) V. Drew Mark Levitt, Respondent(s)
SC2025-0448 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2023-50,627(17J); 2023-50,667(17J);
SC2025-0451 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2023-50,626(17J); 2023-50,668(17J)
Upon consideration of the Reports of Referee Accepting Consent Judgment, the Conditional Guilty Pleas for Consent Judgment, the Stipulations to Entry of Agreed Orders, and the Motions to Assess Costs, it is the judgment of this Court that the Reports of Referee, Consent Judgments, and the Stipulations, filed with this Court on May 16, 2025, are hereby disapproved. The Court would instead impose a three-year suspension in each case, along with the other conditions set forth in the Reports of Referee, and payment of The Florida Bar's costs. Should the parties agree to this disposition, revised Consent Judgments shall be filed with the
CASE NOS.: SC2025-0448 & SC2025-0451 Page Two
Court within 30 days of the date of this order. Otherwise, the matters should be scheduled for hearing before the referee and Amended Reports of Referee filed with the Court within 90 days of the date of this order. MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
LABARGA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority that the factual findings in the reports of the referee are sufficient to support Respondents' culpability for violating numerous Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. However, I disagree with the majority's decision to reject the stipulation of the parties which provided for a suspension of eighteen months for each Respondent and, instead, impose a three-year suspension.
While the actions of the Respondents were egregious to say the least, both have been members of The Florida Bar for over thirty years without any disciplinary record. I find these two factors to be
CASE NOS.: SC2025-0448 & SC2025-0451 Page Three
significant and worthy of consideration. I would accept suspending the Respondents for eighteen months.
A True Copy Test:
SC2025-0448 10/30/2025 SC2025-0451 10/30/2025
John A. Tomasino Clerk, Supreme Court SC2025-0448 10/30/2025 SC2025-0451 10/30/2025
SO
Served:
HON. KATHLEEN MCCARTHY PATRICIA ANN TORO SAVITZ D. CULVER SMITH, III TRACY LEE SORCEK