DONNA L. PACE AND PHILIP J. FELDMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., 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.
A Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) sanctioned an attorney for violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct in a workers' compensation case. The appellate court reversed, holding that JCCs lack jurisdiction to conduct attorney disciplinary proceedings, which are exclusively within the Florida Supreme Court's authority.
A JCC has no jurisdiction to sanction an attorney for violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. JCCs possess only limited quasi-judicial powers relating to adjudication of workers' compensation claims and lack inherent judicial power. The Florida Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) lacks jurisdiction to sanction an attorney for violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.
[2] A JCC's authority is limited to powers expressly conferred by statute, and does not include inherent judicial power or contempt authority.
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“A JCC has no jurisdiction to sanction an attorney for violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.”
States the primary holding of the case establishing the core jurisdictional limitation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Donna L. Pace and Philip J. Feldman challenged an order by a JCC that denied their motion for entry of a final order, found their attorney …
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 Florida Bar Code Of Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants challenge an order of the JCC that denied their motion for entry of a final order, found appellant’s attorney in violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, and sanctioned the attorney for such violations.
We reverse all but the denial of the motion for entry of a final order. A JCC has no jurisdiction to sanction an attorney for violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. A JCC is “vested only with certain limited quasi-judicial powers relating to the adjudication of claims for compensation and benefits.” Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Adm’rs, 427 So. 2d 182, 184 (Fla.1983). “A JCC has no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute.” Farhangi v. Dunkin Donuts, 728 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “Unlike a court of general jurisdiction, a judge of compensation claims does not have inherent judicial power but only the power expressly conferred by chapter 440.” McFadden v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 573 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see Salony v.
S. Fla. Pub. Communication, 734 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that a “JCC lacks contempt authority”). Nothing in chapter 440 gives the JCC the authority, power, or jurisdiction to conduct an attorney disciplinary proceeding or sanction an attorney for a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. See § 440.33, Fla. Stat. (2002) (concerning “powers of judges of compensation claims”).
Further, as this court has recognized, “the Supreme Court of Florida has exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline of attorneys.” Bammac, Inc. v. Grady, 500 So. 2d 274, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
See Art. V., § 15, Fla. Const. (“Attorneys; admission and discipline. — The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.”).
See also, e.g., The Fla. Bar v. Flinn, 575 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1991) (approving referee’s findings of fact and discipline recommendation in lawyer disciplinary proceeding involving, among other things, actions taken by attorney in workers’ compensation case); The Fla. Bar v. Kirtz, 445 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla.1984) (approving referee’s finding and discipline recommendation concerning attorney’s misconduct in workers’ compensation case).
Therefore, because the JCC acted beyond his jurisdiction here, we reverse the order on appeal to the extent that it finds appellant’s attorney in violation of Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and imposes sanctions because of such violations.
REVERSED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)
- J.W. McFADDEN v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 573 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Boltri v. Singletary, 728 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Nahid Farhangi v. Dunkin Donuts & Associated Indus. Ins. Co., 728 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Bammac, Inc. v. Grady, 500 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Kirtz, 445 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1984)
- THE Florida BAR v. Flinn, 575 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1991)
- Mayers v. Mayers, 734 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Salony v. South Florida Public Communication, 734 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)