Former judicial candidate’s suit takes aim at Florida Bar

Audio By Carbonatix

(Legal Newsline) – A Florida attorney and former judicial candidate has filed a lawsuit against the Florida Bar, its counsel and its executive director in federal court alleging “retaliatory and discriminatory conduct.”

The plaintiff, who uses the pseudonym John Doe, claims to be a member in “good standing” of the Florida Bar, an “experienced” Florida attorney, and a candidate for circuit judge in the Florida judicial circuit. He filed his lawsuit last month in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division.

The named defendants include the Bar, Bar Counsel Ashley Morrison, and Bar Executive Director Joshua E. Doyle.

Doe contends his civil rights and rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act have been violated.

The violations, he argues, stem from the defendants’ “retaliatory and discriminatory conduct in connection with attorney disciplinary proceedings” initiated against him and from what he claims is a “retaliatory” Bar complaint filed against him by a law enforcement deputy.

“At bottom, this case concerns an arm of the state judiciary deploying its regulatory power over lawyers not to protect the public, but to protect the judiciary itself from criticism – suppressing the form of expression the First Amendment exists most centrally to protect: speech against government power,” his complaint states.

According to the 32-page filing, at the crux of his case is Rule 3-7.18, which regulates how the Bar governs the handling of judicial referrals.

Judicial referrals are inquiries, complaints, or communications submitted by judges questioning an attorney’s conduct.

According to the Florida Bar’s website, it establishes a special review process involving the Bar’s Disciplinary Review Committee, its Board of Governors, and the Florida Supreme Court.

In September 2025, the Florida Supreme Court issued an update to the rule, in which judicial referrals cannot address allegations of violations relating to judicial elections.

The amendments were sought to address concerns about maintaining the appearance of impartiality and prevent misuse of the process against political opponents.

“Within merely two election cycles of the Florida Supreme Court’s 2021 adoption of a special preference for judicial referrals, the mechanism had been so visibly turned by incumbent judges against their electoral challengers that the Bar itself petitioned to repeal the preference for election-related grievances,” Doe’s lawsuit states.

“Yet the Bar continues this prosecution – stripped now of the codified preference of former Rule 3-7.18, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, but not of its purpose.”

According to his suit, Doe announced his candidacy for circuit judge against a sitting incumbent circuit judge in June 2023. After the announcement, the Bar received a series of complaints against him arising from “protected campaign speech,” he claims.

Doe argues the file against him does not meet the requirements of the rule’s current definition.

“It is, on its face, an allegation arising from Plaintiff’s election campaign, and the Referring Judge’s knowledge of the underlying conduct arose from his position as Plaintiff’s electoral opponent, not from any judicial function,” the filing states.

“Nonetheless, the Bar’s own internal notices and correspondence continue to describe and process File No. 2025-30,068(9B) as a judicial referral.”

In his suit, Doe also takes aim at a Bar complaint filed against him by a law enforcement officer.

The Bar complaint stems from a March 2025 incident in which Doe called the Orange County Sheriff’s Office for assistance after his then-partner allegedly took his vehicle without permission. Two deputies responded, he claims.

According to his lawsuit, during the encounter, he made statements “critical” of the responding officers’ conduct. He admits to using “oinking” and the word “pigs” in his disapproving comments.

However, he argues that his criticism – though insulting – is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Following the incident, one of the responding deputies filed a complaint against Doe with the Florida Bar. Doe contends it was filed in retaliation for his protected speech.

“During the same encounter, one of the responding deputies transported and counseled the individual against whom Plaintiff had sought police protection, rather than assisting Plaintiff, providing further evidence of the officers’ bias in favor of the aggressor and against Plaintiff,” the complaint states.

Doe also takes issue with the Bar’s ADA accommodation process. He claims he sought a reasonable accommodation to participate in the grievance process in April.

According to his filing, due to his autism spectrum disorder, he requested a 30-day extension and an in-person appearance before the grievance committee. Instead, a video recording accommodation was substituted, he alleges.

He argues the Bar maintains no published ADA coordinator, no named contact, and no “comparable” grievance procedure for attorneys who are respondents in disciplinary proceedings.

Doe contends the Bar’s failure to do so “constitutes a structural policy of disparate treatment redressable” under the ADA.

In his lawsuit, Doe seeks, among other things: a judgment that the former rule is unconstitutional as it applies to his case; the Bar must cease classifying his disciplinary proceedings as a judicial referral; the Bar designates a published ADA coordinator; compensatory damages; punitive damages and attorney fees.

Doe is representing himself in the action.