The Bar destroyed the records of how it handled Husband's complaint, and any record supporting its closure, after Husband sued to get them. Its Deputy General Counsel reported them "disposed of" and "no longer available," naming no date, provision, or authority.
Art. I, s. 24(a) presumes the Bar's records open. Records sought in a pending records lawsuit are preserved, and a custodian that reports records gone states when they went, under which provision, and on whose authority. 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 to Dec. 17, 2025: the closure letter set the disposal date: "the computer record and file of this matter will be disposed of one year from the date of closure," Feb. 24, 2026. Husband requested the records on Nov. 10 and sued for them in Leon County on Dec. 17, 2025. The Bar's own motion describes the request as "all records related to his Bar complaint." N-116, N-150, FNEW-B2Read them: Closure letter, Feb. 24, 2025 (record on appeal p. 103) (link pending redacted copy)
- June 3 to 5, 2026: Husband asked for records of what the Bar did with his messages before assuring him of "investigation by a Senior Staff Attorney" (Category 1), and for any record supporting the closure (Category 3). Category 1: "The requested records relating to RFA 25-6861 have been disposed of pursuant to judicial branch and bar records retention schedule and are no longer available." Category 3: the same, then "In any event, The Florida Bar has no responsibility to identify records that might support your claims." Appeal 1D2026-0728 was pending when the letter was written. N-116, N-055Read them: Courtemanche letter, June 5, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
- July 16 to Aug. 6, 2026: asked for the audit trail and purge logs showing how the file was disposed of, the Bar priced them at $2,614.80. Asked three times to confirm that nothing would be disposed of while the appeal is pending, its General Counsel's entire answer: "As stated before, the bar's legal hold remains in place." N-132, N-150When were the records of RFA 25-6861 destroyed, under which provision of which retention schedule, and on whose authority?
Deputy General Counsel Rick Courtemanche (the June 5 letter). General Counsel Gypsy Bailey (the Aug. 6 answers). One complaint file, one records request, one letter. Every duty here arises from Article I, section 24 and the Bar's own retention notice on this file alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. presumes the Bar's records open and puts the burden of any withholding on the custodian. The Bar's own motion concedes its records "are governed by" Rule 2.420, and Rule 2.420(m)(2) requires a written basis for any denial.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
On 6/5/26 the Bar's Deputy General Counsel stated that the records of RFA 25-6861 "have been disposed of pursuant to judicial branch and bar records retention schedule and are no longer available." Appeal 1D2026-0728 was pending when he wrote it. His letter names no disposal date, no schedule provision and no authorizer.
Eleven days later, a second Davis complaint's closure letter calendared that file for disposal too, one year out, in the same words: "In light of the foregoing, this file has been closed effective June 16, 2026. Pursuant to the Bar's records retention schedule, the computer record and file of this matter will be disposed of one year from the date of closure." What matters is what was disposed of during a pending appeal, and the three facts the statement leaves out. [DENIED]
Records subject to a pending appeal cannot be destroyed while it is pending, and a custodian who says a record is gone can state when it went, under what provision, and on whose authority. Article I, section 24(a) presumes records open and puts that burden on the custodian. The file reported destroyed would show how the complaint at N-031 was handled, which the Bar's own papers describe three ways (N-055, N-077, N-105). None of the three required facts appears here.
the Bar reported the file destroyed while the appeal about that very file was pending, and named no disposal date, no schedule provision and no one who authorized it
- Courtemanche letter 6/5/26, request W016446-060426; the $89.36 Category 2 charge recomputes exactly as $65.89 attorney plus $23.47 clerical.
- Wackes letter 6/16/26 p. 2 for the second file's clock, wording identical to Huston 2/24/25 p. 1.
- Huston retention sentence at Leon ROA p. 103; Schuyler restatement at Leon ROA p. 642, 7/16/25, filed by the Bar's own counsel as Composite Exhibit A with a judicial-notice request at ROA p. 626.
- Closure 2/24/25, one year from closure is 2/24/26; records request made 11/10/25; Leon petition filed 12/17/25; dismissal order entered 2/13/26 and rehearing denial 2/24/26, the same calendar day the announced disposal date fell.
- Authorities the Bar relies on for declining to identify records: Bivens v. Tony, 368 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) and Doe v. DeSantis, 390 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024); reporter cites for both not yet confirmed.
- The Leon action's pendency is stated here against the 2/24/26 disposal date; the arithmetic has not been independently rechecked.