The Florida Bar v. Studstill
The Florida Supreme Court rejected a referee's recommendation of not guilty and found an attorney guilty of violating Rules 4-3.3(a)(1) (candor) and 4-3.4(c) (fairness/disobeying tribunal obligations) after he spoke with his own expert witness about excluded exhibits in contravention of the trial judge's express instruction that the witness have no contact with any party or party representative, and then misrepresented the conversation to the judge. The Court held the referee erred by focusing on the lawyer's motive rather than whether he acted knowingly, and that his COVID-related claims of impairment were not supported by competent, substantial evidence. A partial dissent argued the rule of sequestration under section 90.616 does not bar attorney-witness communications and that no special 'ruling' was ever entered.
Key facts
- Attorney Studstill communicated with his own expert witness about excluded exhibits after the trial judge expressly instructed that the witness have no contact with any party or party representative until recalled.
- Studstill then misrepresented the substance of that conversation to the trial judge.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Although a Bar discipline case, the opinion gives civil trial lawyers a practical rule on sequestration orders: when a judge's oral instruction sweeps more broadly than section 90.616 (e.g., barring all contact with any… — 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.