LEMUEL L. COLE, APPELLANT,
v.
LORNA H. OWENS, ESQ., RANDI K. LAZARUS, ESQ. AND ARLENE K. SANKEL, ESQ., APPELLEES
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 court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint because the Florida Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over bar grievance proceedings and the attorneys are immune from suit for their official actions.
[1] The Florida Supreme Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to review bar grievance proceedings.
[2] A party lacks standing to appeal a bar's decision not to discipline an attorney.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sued Florida Bar staff attorneys for failing to refer his complaint against his former attorney for disciplinary action. He alleged due proc…
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 Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lemuel L. Cole appeals from an order dismissing his complaint against Randi Lazarus and Arlene Sankel (appellees) for their actions as staff attorneys of the Florida Bar. In his complaint, he asserts state and federal due process, equal protection, and civil rights violations along with tort claims against appellees for their failure to refer his complaint against his former attorney, Lorna Owens, to the grievance committee for disciplinary action and to comply with his demand to reopen their investigation.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint because it had jurisdiction to hear his complaint for declaratory judgment and determine whether the procedures used by appellees in the Bar grievance process violated his due process and equal protection rights. We disagree. The Florida Supreme Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to review bar grievance proceedings. See Fla. Const, art. V, § 15; Fla. Bar Rules 3-3.5, 3-7.7.
Appellant has also failed to demonstrate reversible error in the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint without granting him leave to amend. Appellant lacked standing to appeal the Bar’s decision to not discipline Ms. Owens. See Application of Harper, 84 So. 2d 700, 702 (Fla.1956); Fla. Bar Rule 3-7.4(i). Moreover, appellees, as duly authorized agents of the Florida Bar, have absolute immunity for their official actions. See Mueller v. The Florida Bar, 390 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint without granting him leave to amend because his complaint cannot be amended to state a cause of action. See Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Finally, we hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the substitution of the Honorable John E. Fennelly for the Honorable Larry Schack in this case. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.050. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing appellant’s complaint against Randi K. Lazarus and Arlene K. Sankel.
Affirmed.
DELL, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawson v. Ivashuk, 974 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…. Bar, 826 So. 2d 265, 268 (Fla.2002) (“Disciplinary proceedings against attorneys are instituted in the public interest and to preserve the purity of the courts. No private rights except those of the accused attorney are involved.”); Cole v. Owens, 766 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (As an official arm of the supreme court, the Florida Bar and its employees enjoy absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of their duties.). WARNER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Henry v. Bank of Am. N.A. (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…g the course of their official duties. Thus, they are immune. Henry v. The Fla. Bar, 615CV1009ORL41TBS, 2016 WL 9631676, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2016), aff'd sub nom. Henry v. Fla. Bar, 701 Fed. App’x 878 (11th Cir. 2017); see also Cole v. Owens, 766 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (Staff attorneys for The Florida Bar, as duly authorized agents of the Bar, have absolute immunity for their official actions.); Kee v. Bailey, 634 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The Florida Bar and its employees act as…
-
Yeyille v. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…ambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of July, 2025. DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE matters of regulation of attorneys[]") and (2) the Court does not have jurisdiction to review actions taken by the Florida bar, see Cole v. Owens, 766 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that "[t]he Florida Supreme Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to review bar grievance proceedings."). 6 ---PAGE 6---…
Authorities Cited
- Irve Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Mueller v. THE Florida BAR, 390 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Sauls v. Sauls, 84 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1956)
- Parrish v. Gallup, 84 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1956)