THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
NATHANIEL W. TINDALL, II, RESPONDENT
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 disciplined attorney Nathaniel W. Tindall, II for filing a federal complaint containing unsubstantiated accusations that a circuit judge had engaged in bribery and unfair disposition of a case. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the referee's recommendation and imposed a public reprimand, finding that formalizing serious, false charges against a judge in a formal legal filing constituted misconduct warranting public discipline.
The attorney violated disciplinary rules 7-102(A)(1) and 8-102(B) by knowingly making false accusations against a judge and asserting positions designed to harass or maliciously injure another. A public reprimand is the appropriate discipline, as the formalization of admittedly unsubstantiated serious charges against a judge in a federal complaint rises above minor misconduct.
[1] Filing a federal complaint containing unsubstantiated accusations of racketeering and bribery against a judge, after an unfavorable ruling in state court, violates discip…
[2] A public reprimand is warranted when an attorney formalizes unsubstantiated accusations against a judge by including them in a filed complaint, as this conduct rises abov…
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 respondent went to the extreme of formalizing his admittedly unsubstantiated, serious charges against a member of the judiciary by including them in a complaint, and later in an amended complaint filed in the United States District Court.”
Establishes that the attorney's deliberate formalization of false accusations in legal filings, rather than mere speech, constituted serious misconduct warranting public discipline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTindall, as plaintiff in a declaratory action regarding a business transaction, received an unfavorable ruling from a circuit judge. Rather than accep…
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 Judicial Discipline cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of a referee’s report filed pursuant to rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The respondent, Nathaniel W. Tindall, II, was involved in a declaratory action in which he, as plaintiff, sought a determination of his rights regarding a business transaction. Upon an unfavorable ruling from the circuit judge, the respondent filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, alleging racketeering activities on the part of the defendants to the civil action. In the complaint, the respondent accused the aforementioned circuit judge of unfair disposition of the case and of accepting bribes from the defendant. The respondent testified at the final hearing that he had no evidence establishing any improper activity on the part of the circuit judge.
The referee recommended that the respondent be found guilty of violating disciplinary rules 7-102(A)(l) (asserting a position when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another); and 8-102(B) (knowingly making false accusations against a judge) of The Florida Bar’s Code of Professional Responsibility. The referee recommended that the respondent be disciplined with a public reprimand.
We approve all the recommendations in the referee’s report. Although the respondent argues that a private reprimand would suffice as discipline in this instance, we believe that his conduct warrants a public reprimand. Had the respondent merely verbalized his accusations in the heat of a bad day in court, perhaps a private reprimand would have been in order. However, the respondent went to the extreme of formalizing his admittedly unsubstantiated, serious charges against a member of the judiciary by including them in a complaint, and later in an amended complaint filed in the United States District Court. We believe this conduct rises above the level of minor misconduct.
Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand Nathaniel W. Tindall, II, and the reprimand shall be published in the Southern Reporter, Second Series. The Florida Bar’s costs in this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against Nathaniel W. Tindall, II in the amount of $1,501.05, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Wasserman, 675 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1996)…for making repeated frivolous claims on appeal of a speeding ticket and for making unsubstantiated charges of conspiracy against judge), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 999, 109 S.Ct. 774, 102 L.Ed.2d 767 (1989); and Florida Bar v. Tindall, 550 So. 2d 449 (Fla.1989) (attorney publicly reprimanded for including in a complaint unsubstantiated allegations that judge accepted bribes), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 919, 110 S.Ct. 1948, 109 L.Ed.2d 311 (1990). We find these cases distinguishable from the case at…