The Florida Bar v. Arugu
In a Bar discipline proceeding, the Court held that an attorney who served a non-party subpoena on a mortgage company that differed from the proposed subpoena attached to his notice of intent — adding three sets of records after the ten-day objection window closed — knowingly violated the rules of a tribunal, made a frivolous discovery request, and engaged in dishonest conduct by failing to disclose opposing counsel's objection to the subpoenaed non-party. The Court disapproved the referee's guilt finding under Rule 4-3.4(a) for lack of supporting findings and increased the recommended sixty-day suspension to ninety-one days.
Key facts
- Attorney Arugu served a non-party subpoena on a mortgage company that materially differed from the proposed subpoena attached to his notice of intent, adding three sets of records after the ten-day objection window had closed.
- Opposing counsel had objected to the subpoena, but Arugu failed to disclose this objection to the non-party and did not obtain a court ruling before serving the expanded subpoena.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion supplies a clear disciplinary benchmark for abuse of the notice-of-production/non-party subpoena procedure, and its reasoning maps directly onto Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.351's parallel identical-subpoena and… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.