Dueling lawyers in West Palm Beach have taken an arbitrated fee dispute to unusual lengths after one lawyer allegedly referred to the arbitration as a "kangaroo court." We previously wrote on this case in this May 31, 2006 post. In June 2006, the Florida Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court had exceeded its jurisdiction to compel the Florida Bar to action.

According to the Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Complaint in Robert M. Montgomery, Jr. v. The Florida Bar, attorney Robert Montgomery filed bar complaints against attorneys Christopher Larmoyeux and Patrick Casey (Respondents) over alleged comments they had made to the press regarding a fee dispute arbitration.

The Respondents purportedly called the arbitration proceeding a "kangaroo court," "dirty arbitration," and "rigged deal" and referred to the arbitrator (former judge Daniel Pearson, now deceased) as "corrupted by Montgomery" and that he was "funneling Larmoyeux's money through Montgomery to his law partner [Bill McBride] running for governor." There do not appear to be pleadings filed by the Respondents in this case regarding these alleged statements.

The Montgomery suit, however, was against the Florida Bar for production of public records and for failure to take action to discipline lawyers for criticizing arbitrators and arbitration under Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-8.2(a).Read Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint here. According to the Plaintiff, the Bar Complaints were filed in March 2003; probable cause was found in November 2004; and the Bar had drafted but not filed complaints as of July 2005. Montgomery sued the Bar in September 2005. After the circuit court ruled in March 2006 that the Bar had to answer the complaint, the Bar appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

In the Florida Bar's Petition for Writ of Prohibition, the legal argument was that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review/enjoin disciplinary actions and the Florida Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction. Also noted was that, on February 24, 2006, the Board of Governors overturned the probable cause findings against the Respondents.

In Montgomery's Response, he argued that the Board of Governor's actions were improper and questioned whether attorney Gene Pettis should have been appointed the Designated Reviewer for the Board because "a lawyer with Pettis' degree of relationship with Montgomery's adversary should not have been involved in the Larmoyeux or Casey matters at all." The ever-expanding web of lawyers is reminiscent of Brandon Jones v. Beasley & Hausler (discussed here). In a similar vein, recall also the Texas Lawyer article regarding why some businesses are questioning if they want arbitration.

The Florida Supreme Court held, "The Florida Bar's petition for writ of prohibition is hereby granted. The Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is exceeding its jurisdiction and usurping the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law in Florida. See Art. V, sec. 15, Fla. Const. (providing the Florida Supreme Court with exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law and "the discipline of persons admitted"). See also Tyson v. Fla. Bar, 826 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2002); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.4(i). Because we trust that the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit will fully comply with the dictates of this order, we withhold issuance of the writ."

At this time, there appears to be no further action in the Montgomery circuit court case nor at the Florida Supreme Court.

Bottom line? Lawyers need to remember that "arbitrator[s]" should not be impugned per Rule 4-8.2