Florida Rejects Proposed Domestic Violence Sanction As Unduly Lenient

The Florida Supreme Court imposed more severe discipline than the 90-day suspension sought by the Bar and the reprimand that had been proposed by the referee

The Florida Bar seeks review of a referee’s report recommending that Respondent, Ryan F. C. Mitchell, be found guilty of violating the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and publicly reprimanded based on his plea of no contest to two criminal misdemeanors for physically assaulting his wife and throwing her cellphone into a pool. The Bar challenges the referee’s recommended sanction, contending that a public reprimand is too lenient and that Mitchell’s conduct warrants a 90-day suspension followed by one year of probation and participation in a Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. (FLA, Inc.) contract. We agree that Mitchell’s conduct requires more than a public reprimand, but instead of imposing a 90-day non-rehabilitative suspension as requested by the Bar, we suspend Mitchell from the practice of law in Florida for two years.

Facts

In September 2021, Mitchell and his wife, A.M., were experiencing marital difficulties. Mitchell eventually decided that he no longer wanted to remain in the marriage, and he told A.M. on the night of September 22, 2021, that he planned to file for divorce. Later that night, a physical altercation occurred between the couple after A.M. woke Mitchell while he was sleeping. The couple’s three minor children were in the home during the altercation, from which A.M. sustained significant injuries, including a fractured nose and a black eye. Mitchell threw A.M.’s cellphone into the pool after the altercation and left the house before law enforcement arrived.

Two years later, in January 2023, Mitchell pled no contest to two criminal misdemeanors arising from the altercation with A.M. He pled no contest to misdemeanor battery and criminal mischief for physically assaulting A.M. and throwing her cellphone into the pool.  Adjudication was withheld, and Mitchell was sentenced to 18 months of supervised probation. As part of his probation, Mitchell was required to: (1) have no contact with A.M.; (2) pay $2,224.23 in restitution to A.M.; (3) attend and complete the Batterer’s Intervention Program; (4) submit to a mental health evaluation; and (5) submit to a drug and alcohol evaluation. As of November 13, 2023, the date of the hearing before the referee, Mitchell was in full compliance with his misdemeanor probation.

Factors

Additionally, when weighed alongside Mitchell’s criminal conduct, the referee’s findings in mitigation are simply not compelling enough to support a downward adjustment in the presumptive sanction of a suspension to a public reprimand. Mitchell violently assaulted A.M., striking her hard enough to fracture her nose and cause bruising around her eye. He then threw her cellphone into the pool and left the house, leaving A.M. alone, injured, and without her phone to care for herself and the couple’s three minor children, all of whom were in the house when the assault occurred.

To be sure, we recognize that Mitchell made a significant showing in mitigation. He expressed remorse for the assault, fully complied with his criminal probation, and has made a number of positive changes in his day-to-day life, such as engaging in private therapy. But Mitchell’s choice to commit a violent criminal act— especially one directed against his spouse—has revealed a significant breach of ethical conduct that cannot be sufficiently addressed through a public reprimand or tolerated in the legal profession. Fla. Bar v. Lord, 433 So. 2d 983, 986 (Fla. 1983) (noting the discipline imposed must be sufficient to punish a breach of ethics and severe enough to deter others who might be prone or tempted to become involved in like violations). We, thus, conclude that Mitchell’s criminal conduct requires suspension from the practice of law and proof of rehabilitation before reinstatement.

Sanction

Based on Kinsella, as well as Mitchell’s showing in mitigation, we conclude that a two-year rehabilitative suspension, rather than the maximum term of suspension of three years, is the appropriate sanction for Mitchell’s misconduct.

CANADY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the Court’s decision except for the discipline imposed. Because Mitchell committed criminal acts including a battery on his then spouse, which resulted in the fracture of her nose, I would impose a suspension of three years rather than two years.

(Mike Frisch)