Daniel Mark Zavadil v. The Florida Bar

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daniel Mark Zavadil v. The Florida Bar

197 So. 3d 596, 2016 WL 3190918, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8817

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2016

Docket4D15-3573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 So. 3d 596 (Daniel Mark Zavadil v. The Florida Bar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Mark Zavadil v. The Florida Bar, 197 So. 3d 596, 2016 WL 3190918, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8817 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

On Motion fob Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motion for rehearing en banc but grant the motion for a written opinion, withdraw our prior affirmance without opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

■ Affirmed,. The trial court correctly dismissed appellant’s complaint against The Florida Bar for defamation. In his complaint, appellant alleged that the Bar defamed him when it posted in his attorney profile and stated in a letter that he had been “disbarred” when the supreme court had “revoked” his license for making material omissions in his application for admission to the Bar. See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs ex rel. Zavadil, 123 So.3d 550 (Fla.2013). A revocation of a license can be tantamount to a disbarment. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1(g) (“A disciplinary revocation is tantamount to’ a disbarment.”). 1 Moreover, the Bar has absolute immunity' for actions taken within the scope of its authority as an arm of the Florida Supremé Court in the matters of *597 the regulation of attorneys. See Mueller v. The Fla. Bar, 390 So.2d 449, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The term, “scope of office” has been interpreted broadly, Id. at 451-52. Maintaining an accurate public listing of attorneys, including whether or not they are in good standing and able to practice, is an integral part of the Bar’s duties, as is responding to inquiries regarding an attorney’s status. See, e.g., R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.4;

WARNER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur. '

1

. Although appellants suspension was under Florida Bar Admissions Rule 5-14, -Rule 3-5.1(g) is instructive that revocation and disbarment are similar. To "disbar” means to expel from the bar so that the member can no longer practice law in that jurisdiction. See ,R, Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1(f); Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Revocation of the license also prevents the member from practicing law in that jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On Motion fob Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motion for rehearing en banc but grant the motion for a written opinion, withdraw our prior affirmance without opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

■ Affirmed,. The trial court correctly dismissed appellant’s complaint against The Florida Bar for defamation. In his complaint, appellant alleged that the Bar defamed him when it posted in his attorney profile and stated in a letter that he had been “disbarred” when the supreme court had “revoked” his license for making material omissions in his application for admission to the Bar. See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs ex rel. Zavadil, 123 So.3d 550 (Fla.2013). A revocation of a license can be tantamount to a disbarment. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1(g) (“A disciplinary revocation is tantamount to’ a disbarment.”). 1 Moreover, the Bar has absolute immunity' for actions taken within the scope of its authority as an arm of the Florida Supremé Court in the matters of *597 the regulation of attorneys. See Mueller v. The Fla. Bar, 390 So.2d 449, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The term, “scope of office” has been interpreted broadly, Id. at 451-52. Maintaining an accurate public listing of attorneys, including whether or not they are in good standing and able to practice, is an integral part of the Bar’s duties, as is responding to inquiries regarding an attorney’s status. See, e.g., R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.4;

WARNER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur. '

1

. Although appellants suspension was under Florida Bar Admissions Rule 5-14, -Rule 3-5.1(g) is instructive that revocation and disbarment are similar. To "disbar” means to expel from the bar so that the member can no longer practice law in that jurisdiction. See ,R, Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1(f); Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Revocation of the license also prevents the member from practicing law in that jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 596, 2016 WL 3190918, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-mark-zavadil-v-the-florida-bar-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack