Professionalism panels report routine complaints, emerging AI issues ahead of May summit
As they gear up for a May 8 “mandatory summit,” Florida’s local professionalism panels continue to report familiar challenges, and a potentially troubling new trend.
Independent LPPs in each of Florida’s 20 judicial circuits offer a peer-to-peer mentoring process for addressing instances of unprofessional conduct “separate and apart” from the formal Bar grievance process, notes a 2023 Supreme Court order.
“The Court agrees with the Special Committee that the informal, peer-to-peer mentoring approach offered by local professionalism panels can materially improve professionalism among Florida lawyers,” the order states.
In Re: Code for Resolving Professionalism Referrals and Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 6-10.3 adopted most of the recommendations of a special Florida Bar committee. Among other things, the order describes procedures for forming panels, resolving complaints, maintaining confidentiality, and the regular, but anonymous reporting of referrals. It also requires an annual “mandatory meeting” of panel chairs.
The latest batch of reports describe familiar challenges in circuits large and small — instances of lawyers ignoring opponent emails or phone calls, blowing court deadlines, missing hearings, or being rude to other lawyers, judges, or court personnel.
“Our referrals deal with many different issues and have not just centered on what could be seen as one ‘most often’ in our circuit,” writes Third Circuit LPP Chair, General Magistrate Christina Seifert. “Referrals include allegations related to honesty, integrity and candor to the Court, failure to appear for hearings and Orders to Show Cause issued by a Judge.”
Eleventh Circuit LPP Co-Chairs Marc R. Ginsberg and Evan Marks cite “Rude and unprofessional communications, failure to professionally coordinate depositions and hearings, unprofessional conduct during depositions or in court,” as common examples of Miami-Dade referrals.
The 11th Circuit report also offers a textbook example of how sponsors envisioned the LPP process working.
In a September 2024 referral, a criminal defense attorney was facing a contempt order from the Fifth District Court of Appeal “for failure to timely file a brief after multiple extensions.”
The respondent resolved the complaint by successfully undergoing six months of counseling with a mentor regarding case and calendar management, “and personal counseling to deal with family issue in lieu of Florida Bar referral,” the report notes.
Further north, 17th Judicial Circuit LPP Chair Miles McGrane describes an ongoing debate among professional groups, practice area sections, the Broward County Bar Association and its Professionalism Committee, judges and voluntary bars, about the causes for an apparent rise in unprofessional behavior.
Some suggest that remote appearances “erode collegiality that in the past was possible because attorneys met and conferred in person and often resolved legal and other matters.” Others note that “in-person hearings allowed new attorneys to observe more senior attorneys in court, which facilitated” professionalism.
“As was previously reported, the inability to schedule hearings, discovery violations and unnecessary delays in litigation has contributed to increased stress among attorneys which results in unprofessional conduct.”
Sixth Judicial Circuit LPP Chair Andrew Sasso cites similar concerns.
His report refers to “a lack of mentoring, diminished relationships between lawyers, high rates of mental health challenges, (like depression and anxiety), substance abuse (harmful or hazardous use of psychoactive substances, including alcohol and drugs), intense pressure to meet deadlines, prioritizing financial gain over client interests, an adversarial culture that values success at any cost, ethical conflicts arising from client demands for aggressive or even unethical tactics, and insufficient focus on mental health and well-being.”
At least one referral appears to reflect the nation’s growing political divide.
A November 2025 referral to the Seventh Judicial Circuit LPP concerns an attorney who accused a prosecutor of making “unethical misrepresentations” to a legislative committee.
“After the referring attorney spoke, the respondent spoke and said the previous speaker had made some ‘mischaracterizations’ of the applicable law,” the report states. “The panel has not yet begun its investigation.”
It’s too early to determine with any confidence whether professionalism referrals are rising or falling. Several reports note that there is still a general lack of awareness that the local professionalism panels exist.
But at least two referrals in the latest batch of reports suggest a new trend may be developing.
A June 5, 2025, referral to the 11th Circuit LPP notes that “Respondent filed reply memorandum with AI Hallucinated case law.”
The resolution?
“Attorney counseled, attended AI CLE.”
