The Bar closed a sworn complaint against Wife's lawyer in six days without investigating, ignored seventeen emails offering evidence during its review, never answered yes or no to four written questions about its contacts with him, and destroyed records of its handling of the complaint after Husband sued to get them, naming no date, provision, or authority.
Rule 3-7.3(b) required bar counsel to investigate Husband's sworn complaint, and investigation starts with asking Davis to respond. Asked four times whether the Bar ever communicated with Davis about it, the Bar answers yes or no. Records sought in a pending records lawsuit are preserved. The Florida Bar knows better than to destroy records sought in litigation. Its own Deputy General Counsel taught the rule: "If you have the record, it must be produced even if it could have been disposed of under your retention schedule."
- Feb. 24, 2025: closed six days after filing. Davis was never asked to respond. The Bar's own brief: the file "was closed without further investigation." N-031, N-126
- Feb. 24 to Oct. 10, 2025: Husband sent seventeen emails offering documentation and asking to engage. The Bar replied with three status formulas. He asked, "Is there a rule against speaking with me?" No one answered. Sept. 24, 2025: "Further correspondence from you regarding this matter will be placed in the file without response." NEW-P6, N-055
- Nov. 10, 2025 to Feb. 9, 2026: asked four times in writing whether the Bar ever communicated with Davis about the complaint. The answers: "[Y]ou have been provided the entire public record." "Such records were not provided because they do not exist." "there are no comms with Mr. Davis at all withheld from public record production." N-077Why have the Florida Bar and its counsel at Greenberg Traurig refused to answer a simple question about these records, despite a records lawsuit in Leon County and an appeal still pending in the First District Court of Appeal?Read them: Courtemanche email chain, Nov. 10 to Dec. 1, 2025 (link pending redacted copy) · Londot email, Feb. 9, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
- Sept. 24, 2025 to June 5, 2026: the Bar's Director of Intake: the review "included investigation by a Senior Staff Attorney." May 22, 2026, its counsel to the family court: "the Bar did not act on his complaint." June 5, 2026: the records "have been disposed of pursuant to judicial branch and bar records retention schedule and are no longer available." Husband had sued for them on Dec. 17, 2025, and appeal 1D2026-0728 was pending when the letter was written. It names no date, no provision, and no one who authorized it. N-055, N-105, N-116
Bar Counsel Allie F. Huston (closure). Deputy General Counsel Rick Courtemanche (replies; disposal letter). John Londot, Greenberg Traurig, counsel for the Bar (court filing; Feb. 9 email). One sworn complaint, one set of written questions, one file. Every duty here arises from the Bar's own rules on this file alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. V, s. 15, Fla. Const. vests attorney discipline in the Supreme Court. Rule 3-7.3(b): bar counsel "must investigate" a sworn complaint. Rule 3-7.1(b): correspondence "furnished to, served on, or received from the respondent" is public record. Art. I, s. 24(a) presumes records open and puts the burden on the custodian.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
A sworn 25-page complaint about Wife's lawyer closed in six days; the lawyer was not asked to respond.
Husband signed a 25-page written complaint against Wife's counsel Scott Davis on February 18, 2025. Six calendar days later, Bar Counsel Allie F. Huston closed it: "The matters upon which your allegations are premised present questions of law and involve a dispute over which a court has jurisdiction." No response cycle began; Davis was never asked to respond. The letter disclosed no review process, no timeframe, and no reconsideration path, and started a one-year clock on the file's destruction. Every Bar decisional letter to Husband on this file came by U.S. mail with no email address, while the same bar counsel answered him by email three times on status alone, deciding nothing (NEW-P6). On files where Husband was respondent or complainant elsewhere, the Bar emailed him; he asked why this file alone came by mail, and no answer is in the record. [DENIED: closed without a response cycle]
Bar counsel 'must investigate' a sworn written complaint and may dismiss only 'after complete investigation.' Husband's 25-page complaint was signed under penalties of perjury on the Bar's own form. Six days later it was closed with no question put to Davis and no rule named; the letter offered resubmission only if a court first made a supporting finding. The presiding judge had said she does not discipline lawyers and declined to question Davis (N-046); her successor has refused to make findings six times (N-091).
the regulator closed a 25-page written complaint against Wife's lawyer in six days without ever asking him to answer it, and told the complaining lawyer to come back once a court made the finding that court has since refused to make
- Huston closure letter 2/24/25, RFA 25-6861, at 1150 Doc 200 p. 29 of 42, filed by Davis himself 6/4/25, Filing #224549972; also at Leon ROA p. 103.
- The complaint signed 2/18/25; Exhibit A is the 2/12/25 Chief Judge letter, Exhibit B is Wife's 12/13/24 motion for a psychological examination, Filing #212815329, incomplete in the filed copy.
- The grammatical subject of the quoted sentence is "The matters upon which your allegations are premised," never "the allegations".
- Rule 3-7.3(b) is quoted in full from the current rule (June 30, 2026 / July 1, 2026 edition); Rules 3-7.3(a), (c) and (d) are read in the same June 30, 2026 edition (print pp. 115-117).
- The 15-day and 10-day windows come from the Bar's public ACAP process page, which is NOT yet captured and filed as a record.
- Six calendar days and four business days both computed from 2/18/25 to 2/24/25; the federal complaint's "six business days" at paras. 2 and 49 is wrong and four is both accurate and stronger.
- Husband's quoted question is at p. 2 of his 6/10/26 6:58 AM email to Bar leadership re the Davis grievance and conflicts, as sent; that email's text layer is ciphered. The document itself does not show a delivery failure (N-124).
- Good-standing certificate: Cynthia B. Jackson, CFO, 8/7/26, CTM-428037.
- The 12/19/24 pre-affirmation of Davis by the same court sits at N-018.
- Court-side receipts for the locked exit: N-046 (4/22/25), N-091 (4/17/26 Tr. 181).
- Husband's own standing: admitted 9/28/2007, active, in good standing, 10-Year Discipline History: None. The only Bar complaint ever filed against him came nine months later, from the judge who had been disqualified from this case (N-032, N-064).
- Related decision points: N-121.