IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR THE DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN RE: Marriage of: Case No.: 2004 DR 001209
Division: Fm-B
J ennifer N. Nelson Dabney
Respondent/Former Wife
And
J ohn T. Nelson
Petitioner, Former Husband
______________________________/
FORMER WIFES AMENDED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF
PROCEDURAL RULES OF COURT, RULES OF FLORIDA BAR ASSOCIATION,
FLORIDA STATUTES AND FILING OF FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS
COMES NOW, the Former Wife, [J ennifer N. Dabney], pro se, to file this Motion
For Sanctions for Violation of Procedural Rules of Court, Rules of Florida Bar
Association, Florida Statutes and Filing of Frivolous Lawsuits for a manifest disregard of the
J udicial Circuit Local Rules and Standards of Professionalism, Florida Bar Association Rules of
Professional Conduct, the Florida Civil Rules of Procedure, the Florida Family Law Rules of
Procedure, the Florida Statues and by the filing of frivolous actions.
In support thereof, she does hereby state that:
1. In that Former Wife is required to obey the applicable rules of court, to which she
has complied to the best of her knowledge, it can be equally stated that opposing counsel and
Former Husband should be held to the same standards as indicated in the case of Kohn v. City of
Miami Beach, 611 So.2d 538, 539-540 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1992) that says:
Raised in this case, is the issue of whether Kohn, as a pro se litigant, should be treated
differently from litigants in similar situations, represented by counsel. We conclude that it is a
mistake to hold a pro se litigant to a lesser standard than a reasonably competent attorney.
Section 454.18, Florida Statutes (1991) clearly provides "any person . . . may conduct his own
cause in any court of this state. Subject to the lawful rules and discipline of such court." Likewise,
in Carr v. Grace, 321 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 945 (1977), we
Page 1 of 13
observed a party's self-representation does not relieve the party of the obligation to comply with
any appropriate rules of civil procedure. [Footnotes omitted]
Filing of Frivolous Lawsuit
2. Opposing counsel and Former Husbands continued attempts to file Motions for
Contempt that are inappropriate and unwarranted in the face of Former Wifes Attempts she has
made and his lack of trying to work out the issues prior to filing the Motion for Supervised
Visitation and the proposed Domestic Violence Petition, can only be classified unequivocally as
a frivolous motion designed solely for harassment to maliciously injure Former Wife as pursuant
to the guidelines defined in the case of Yakavonis V. Dolphin Petroleum, Inc., 4D05-3653 (Fla.
App. 4 Dist. 2006) where it states:
We recognize that to some extent, the definition of "frivolous" is incapable of precise
determination. Nevertheless, a review of Florida case law reveals that there are established
guidelines for determining when an action is frivolous. These include where a case is found:
a. to be completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable
argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;
b. to be contradicted by overwhelming evidence;
c. as having been undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the
litigation,
d. or to harass or maliciously injure another;
e. Or as asserting material factual statements that are false.
Former Husbands Motion for Supervised Visitation, Domestic Violence Injunction and
the unwillingness to reunite the child with the mother fulfills the five guidelines as defined in the
case of Yakavonis, supra that are:
It Is Completely Without Merit In Law: The motion has no basis in law and does not comply
with the standard that EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. Nor does it comply with amendments 5, 9, and 14 where it is deemed a
Fundamental Right Protected by these amendments. A parents right to the custody of his or her
children is an element of LIBERTY GAURANTEED BY THE FIFITH AMENDMENT AND
FOURTHEENTH AMENDEMNT TO THE CONSISTUUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Page 2 of 13
These proceedings are improper and impermissible pursuant to Frazier V Frazier, 109 FL
164,172,147 So. 464, (1933) Also see: Michael H. V Gerald D., 109 S.Ct. 2333, 2342 (1989),
Quillion V Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 254-55 (1978), (the relationship between parent and child is
constitutionally protected). This case consistent with the states interest in promoting
meaningful family relationships. See-id 8 61.001(2) (a) one of the purposes of chapter 61 is to
safeguard meaningful family relationships.
Even if Mr. Nelsons proposed motion were appropriate remedy, opposing counsel
and Former Husband have presented no factual findings of evidence of the Former Wifes
present situation.
Former Wife has continually presented documented evidence that she has complied
in all aspects of this case not only with the current Final Order in place (August 2005) but by
paying child support, calling, writing, emailing, and any other attempts to communicate with the
minor child. Furthermore, she has notified this court several different times of the issues
relating to this case by filing appropriate motions, emergency orders, contacting her case
manager (Megan Carter), and there supervisors (J ackie Parker), (Mr. Bishop), as well as the
judges chambers (Boyer)and going as far as contacting the office of Governor (Rick Scott) his
first assistance (Ramon Morris)multiple times with emails, letters and personal calls. The Lt.
Governor (J ennifer Carol) her liaison, and finally the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
At this time I am not sure what else she the Former Wife could possible do other then what she
is currently doing.
Page 3 of 13
To Be Contradicted By Overwhelming Obvious Evidence:
Former Wife has proven the facts in her case not only recently/currently but she tried
to (9) years ago and instead of the legal system protecting her and the minor child
(Mackenzie T. Nelson) and their rights, liberties, and the constitution she was dismissed
without regard. This alone is overwhelming obvious evidence.
As Having Been Undertaken Primarily To Delay Or Prolong The Resolution Of The
Litigation, Or To Harass Or Maliciously Injure Another:
Former Wife on several occasions attempted to negotiate a settlement with Former
Husband by expressing the want and need to have a relationship with the minor child, by
telephone conversations with him and his wife, by email, letters, and lastly her final option
thru the court system. He refused to negotiate or discuss anything relating to the
mother/former wife and the minor child having a relationship. Thereby indicating he had
motives other than justice or equity. Those motives could only have been ascertained to be
for the purpose of intentionally harassing and intimidating her combined with the torts of
malicious prosecution, abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As Asserting Material Factual Statements That Are False:
Examples of false statements are:
Former Husband and opposing counsel asserted that the delay in addressing the
Modification of Visitation was due to the mother Mrs. Dabney has not completed and
complied with the Final Order dated August 2005 by this court. Mr. Nelson and his
attorney have been provided documented evidence with the contact information of the
expert who completed the evaluation along with her credentials, not only were opposing
counsel provided with this by Mrs. Dabney and her client Mr. Nelson but further provided
by this court thru the official recorded file. Mrs. Dabney then went over and above yet
again to make it clear when this was bought up again during mediation by providing the
mediation coordinator (Rebecca Tuilipan) with documents showing Mrs. Dabney has
complied. Unfortunately, to date Mr. Nelson and his counsel continuously have refused to
accept the obvious. There case is frivolous and in violation of Mrs. Dabneys parental
rights as the parent of the minor child (Mackenzie T. Nelson). In fact the delay was the
fault of Mr. Nelson and opposing counsels error in drafting the Objection to
Modification of Visitation and the DVI to which the Former Husband filed an objection.
After the opposing counsel was retained by Mr. Nelson she then filed an amended
Motion Page 4 of 13
for the same Objections. Due to wit the first Objection was drafted by the (J AG Office)
on Mr. Nelsons behalf and at that time he was a pro se litigant. Mr. Nelson attempted to
represent himself to start with however, after the unfavorable ruling by J udge Boyer on
J anuary 19, 2014 Stating Mr. Nelson I want to make it clear the goal of this court is
to REUNITE the CHILD with the MOTHER. Mr. Nelson then retained his current
attorney (Beth Terry).
Former Husband and opposing counsel again misstates the facts with
unsupported allegations, in order to prejudice the Court.
Former Husband and opposing counsel alleged that Former Wifes failure t o
abide by the current court order is in contempt and shows a Emergency Motion for a
DVI, not only is it blatant, and in complete disregard of a c o u r t order when in
actuality she was complying fully with the court order that she complete and then submit
a psychological evaluation as required in which the Final Order (August 2005) states
once completed the Mother/Former Wife may then petition the court for a Modification
of Visitation with the minor child. Let it be noted that while there are multiple
physiologist in the state of Florida to find one that is willing to involve themselves in a
child custody case that had already taken 2 years and over $33,000.00 dollars it
almost near impossible. Simply because they (evaluator) does not want to be
intertwined in a long drawn out case that could potentially last years as this one (9)
years. It took Mrs. Dabney this long to find someone that was willing to help not due to
lack of trying, begging, pleading, and providing payment for services, or documentation to
this case. Former Husband and opposing counsel made a misstatement of the facts when
he asked for payment of lawyer fees with full knowledge that incarceration as a means of
enforcing the collection of attorney fees through contempt proceedings was improper and
impermissible pursuant to Robbie v. Robbie, 683 So.2d 1131 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1996), that
states:
"Using contempt after the fact to compel payment of fees appears to give lawyers
preternatural collection remedies for their fees that no other professional can claim. No one
seriously suggests that the remedy for nonpayment of a bill for medical services, or for food, or for
shelter, should be contempt. Neither has the court in Fishman explained why courts should so
construe this statute when its text lacks an express provision so requiring. I am afraid that this use
of contempt powers threatens to give the impression that divorce lawyers have some
special Page 5 of 13
standing in the courts to be paid upon penalty of jail, which no other lawyer, professional person,
or creditor enjoys."
In addition to being a frivolous motion, it is a violation of Florida Bar Rules of
Professional Conduct [hereinafter FBRPC] rules 3-4.3, 4-1.1, 4-1.2, 4-1.3, 4-3.4(a) (i), 4-4.1, and
4-8.49(a) (c) & (d) [see Appendix]. It is in violation of 57.105 Fla. Sta. for asserting unsupported
and frivolous claims and Former Husband is therefore not entitled to any lawyer fees. Former
Husband and opposing counsel are in violation of the 4
th
Circuit Court Standards of
Professionalism, Attorneys should not knowingly misstate, misrepresent or distort any fact or
legal authority to the court or to opposing counsel and shall not mislead by inaction or silence.
These actions are unconscionable, unacceptable, and unbecoming from someone who is an
officer of this court sworn to ethical and professional behavior. Former Husband and opposing
counsel are attempting to harass Former Wife and intentionally inflict emotional distress with the
filing of this frivolous motion.
The Florida Bar v. Prior, 330 So.2d 697, 703 (Fla. 1976) states:
The Court previously said in Dodd v. The Florida Bar that an attorney who gives false
testimony in a judicial proceeding "deserves the harshest penalty." We are not alone in this
view.
The precise statutory offense for which respondent has been convicted has been
described as perjuries by the United States Supreme Court, United States v.
Kahan, 415 U.S. 239, 240, 94 S.Ct. 1179, 39 L.Ed.2d 297 (1974) (per curiam),
and the giving of false testimony has been held actionable for the purpose of disciplining
attorneys in Alabama, In re Sullivan, 283 Ala. 514, 219 So.2d 346
(1969); New York, In re Abrams, 38 A.D.2d 334, 329 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1972);
Oklahoma, State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assn. v. Pate, 441 P.2d 393 (Okla. 1967); and Utah,
In re King, 7 Utah 2d 258, 322 P.2d 1095 (1958) (subornation of perjury actionable).
On Numerous occasions Former Wife has filed Motions for Determination and
Commitment for Perjury as well as Contempt stating the facts supporting her motion.
Opposing counsel is in violation of the FBRPC rules 3-4.3, 4-1.1, 4-1.2, 4-1.3, 4-4.1, and
4-8.4(a)(b)(c) & (d) [see Appendix] and is guilty of subornation of perjury in filing Former
Husbands allegations without investigating and stating facts provided by her client, that
was replete with perjurious and readily detectible fraudulent entries that opposing counsel
Page 6 of 13
should have not filed. She therefore apparently acted with Former Husband in a conspiracy
to commit perjury, fraud and mislead the court.
The Florida Bar looks down with extreme displeasure on subornation of perjury as shown
in the case of The Florida Bar V. King, 174 So.2d 398, 403 (Fla. 1965) that states:
"As Bar counsel and as a member of a profession that is generally considered an honorable
one, I can think of very few violations more serious and involving moral turpitude than that of
perjury, subornation of perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury. Lawyers, more than any other
group of people, should be aware of the importance and sanctity of oaths before judicial bodies.
In view of the transgressions of opposing counsel, this court has an obligation to report the
opposing counsels misconduct to the Florida Bar pursuant to 5-H Corporation v. Padovano, 708
So.2d 244, 246 (Fla. 1997) that states:
All Florida judges are, first and foremost, attorneys and members of The Florida Bar. See
generally art. V, 8, Fla. Const. As such, Florida judges, just like every other Florida attorney,
have an obligation to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and report to The Florida Bar
any professional misconduct of a fellow attorney. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.3(a). This
obligation is reiterated in the Florida Code of J udicial Conduct, which explicitly provides that "[a]
judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a
lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate
action." Fla. Code J ud. Conduct, Canon 3D. (2).
In view of the transgressions of opposing counsel and former Husbands, dismissal or
default is an appropriate remedy pursuant to Buroz-Henriquez v. De Buroz, 3D08-3049, 2 - 3
(Fla.App. 3 Dist. 10-14-2009) that states:
It is well established that before a court may dismiss a cause or default a party as a
sanction, it must first consider each of the following six factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629
So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1994):
Whether the attorney's disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than
an act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3)
whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay
prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion;
5) whether the attorney offered reasonable justification for noncompliance; and 6) whether the
delay created significant problems of judicial administration.
Page 7 of 13
Accord Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004). Moreover, before a trial court enters
the extreme sanction of dismissal or default, it must set forth explicit findings of fact in the order
imposing the sanction. Alvarado v. Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, Inc., 8 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding dismissal for findings on all six Kozel factors); Coconut
Grove Playhouse, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 935 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quashing order
tantamount to default and remanding for trial court to make express findings). "Express findings
are required to ensure that the trial judge has consciously determined that the failure was more
than a mistake, neglect, or inadvertence, and to assist the reviewing court to the extent the record is
susceptible to more than one interpretation." Ham, 891 So. 2d at 496 (citing Commonwealth Fed.
Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 1990)).
Local Rule Violations
Opposing counsel is in violation of the 4
th
J udicial Circuit Standards of Professionalism
and of the FBRPC Rules 4-1.1 and 4-3.4(a) (i) [see Appendix.] to the detriment of a pro se litigant
who is not experienced in legal matters, which are unconscionable, unacceptable, and unbecoming
from someone who is an officer of this court sworn to ethical and professional behavior.
The motions and notices of hearings were procedurally and fraudently deficient. The initial
written motion did include the requisite certificate of good faith signed by opposing counsel
pursuant to Circuit Court Standards of Professionalism. Motions, which states: 1. Attorneys
should, whenever possible, prior to filing or upon receiving a motion, contact opposing counsel to
determine if the matter can be resolved in whole or in part. This may alleviate the need for filing
the motion or allow submission of an agreed order in lieu of a Hearing: and, 2. before setting a
motion for hearing, counsel should make a reasonable effort to resolve the issue. The above
certificate of good faith to resolve issues were lacking in the documents filed by opposing counsel.
Page 8 of 13
Violations of the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure
Opposing counsel is in violation of the Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.615 (b) and of the
FBRPC Rules 4-1.1 [see Appendix.] to the detriment of a pro se litigant who is not experienced in
legal matters, which are unconscionable, unacceptable, and unbecoming from someone, who is an
officer of this court sworn to ethical and professional behavior.
The notices of hearings were procedurally deficient. The following notices lacked one or
both of the mandatory clauses regarding the court recorder as required by Fla.
Fam. L. R. P. 12.615 (b) stating that: The notice must specify the time and place of the
hearing and must contain the following language: FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING
MAY RESULT IN THE COURT ISSUING A WRIT OF BODILY ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR
ARREST. IF YOU ARE ARRESTED, YOU MAY BE HELD IN J AIL UP TO 48 HOURS
BEFORE A HEARING IS HELD. This notice must also state whether electronic recording or a
court reporter is provided by the court or whether a court reporter, if desired, must be provided by
the party.
Former Husband and opposing counsel are in violation of the Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.285 and
of the FBRPC Rules 3-4.3, 4-1.1, 4-1.3and 4-3.4(a), 4-8.4(a) & (c) [see Appendix.] and J udge
[Boyer] Requirements of Family Division [Mandatory Disclosure] for dilatory actions in not fully
responding to Former Wifes request for discovery. Former Wife has filed several motions to
compel upon which this court has held in abeyance and not ruled upon to date.
Violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
Opposing counsel is in violation of the Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(2), Requirements of Family
Division [Notice of Hearing], and of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct [hereinafter
FBRPC] Rules 4-1.1 and 4-3.4(a)(i) [see Appendix.] to the detriment of a pro se litigant who is not
experienced in legal matters, which are unconscionable, unacceptable, and unbecoming from
someone who is an officer of this court sworn to ethical and professional behavior.
Page 9 of 13
That was replete with perjuries and readily detectible fraudulent entries that opposing
counsel should have not filed. She therefore apparently acted with Former Husband in a conspiracy
to commit perjury, fraud and mislead the court.
The Florida Bar looks down with extreme displeasure on subornation of perjury as shown
in the case of The Florida Bar V. King, 174 So.2d 398, 403 (Fla. 1965) that states:
"As Bar counsel and as a member of a profession that is generally considered an honorable
one, I can think of very few violations more serious and involving moral turpitude than that of
perjury, subornation of perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury. Lawyers, more than any other
group of people, should be aware of the importance and sanctity of oaths before judicial bodies.
The notices of hearings were procedurally deficient in that the rule specifies that notices of
hearings must contain a certificate that the movant's counsel has consulted opposing counsel [pro
se defendant in this case] in an attempt to resolve the issues prior to filing motions.
FORMER WIFES MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF OPPOSING COUNSEL FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE AND MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES OF COURT
COMES NOW, the Former Wife, [Jennifer N. Dabney], pro se, to file this Motion for
Contempt of Opposing Counsel Husband for Non-Compliance With Court Order Directing
Response. In support thereof, she does hereby state that:
1) On J anuary 19, 2014, this court ordered the parties to attempt to resolve the issues
and if they were not able to resolve the issues, that Attorney [Beth Terry] or Mr. Nelson was to
attend mediation with this court and a copy sent to the judge and opposing party. Neither Mr.
Nelson nor his counsel has attempted to resolve anything they have admittedly stated that they DO
NOT want the current custody order to change. Mr. Nelson DOES NOT want to facilitate a
relationship between the Former Wife Jennifer N. Dabney and the minor child Mackenzie T.
Nelson. Opposing counsel has aided in the efforts of Mr. Nelson to continue the breakdown of the
relationship of the Mother and Child, and do whatever possible to hinder any communication.
2) Attorney [Beth Terry] has made no contact or an effort to resolve the issues with
Former Wife. She has received no copy of any response so directed.
3) Attorney [Beth Terry] is in willful contempt for her non-compliance.
Page 10 of 13
WHEREFORE, [Jennifer N. Dabney] pro se requests the Court find Opposing Counsel
and Former Husband in willful contempt and to set forth such sanctions, dismissals, defaults, denial
of attorney fees, orders and such and other relief as is proper for the continued violations of
Attorney [Beth Terry], and Former Husband in their manifest disregard of theJ udicial Circuit Local
Rules and Standards of Professionalism, Requirements of Family Law Division , the Florida Bar
Association Rules of Professional Conduct, the Florida Civil Rules of Procedure, the Florida
Family Law Rules of Procedure, the Florida Statues and for the filing of frivolous actions, and the
Rules of the Supreme Court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS FORMER WIFES AMENDED MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES OF COURT, RULES OF
FLORIDA BAR ASSOCIATION, FLORIDA STATUTES AND FILING OF FRIVOLOUS
LAWSUITS WAS EMAILED TO (BETH TERRY PA ), THIS 31
ST
DAY OF MARCH, 2014.
___________________________
J ennifer N. Dabney, Pro se
6114 Blueberry Lane
Crestview, FL 32536
850.758.1958
jen.dabney@cox.net
CC: Beth Terry Attorney for Husband
Duval Clerks Office
File
Magistrate
Boyer
Florida Bar
J ax Ethics Committee
Page 11 of 13
Appendix
Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct
1. Rule 3-4.2 Rules Of Professional Conduct
a. Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the rules governing
The Florida Bar is a cause for discipline.
2. Rule 3-4.3 Misconduct And Minor Misconduct
a. The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are
not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the
enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for
discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify
any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The
commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and
justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an
attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida,
and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for
discipline.
3. Rule 4-1.1 Competence
a. A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent
representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation.
4. Rule 4-1.2 Objectives And Scope Of Representation
a. (d) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage,
or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is
criminal or fraudulent. However, a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of
any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to
make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application
of the law.
5. Rule 4-1.3 Diligence
a. The lawyer's duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of
offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process
with courtesy and respect.
6. Rule 4-3.4: Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel:
a. A lawyer shall not:
a. (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise
unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the
lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a
reasonably foreseeable proceeding; nor counsel or assist another person to
do any such act;
Page 12 of 13
b. (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or
intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an
opposing party.
7. Rule 4-4.1: Truthfulness In Statements To Others:
a. A lawyer shall not:
b. In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: make a
false statement of material fact or law to a third person. A lawyer is
required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf.
8. Rule 4-8.4(a)
a. Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist
or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.
9. Rule 4-8.4(b)
a. Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
10. Rule 4-8.4(c)
a. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
except that it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer for a criminal law enforcement
agency or regulatory agency to advise others about or to supervise another in an undercover
investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule, and it shall not be professional misconduct for a
lawyer employed in a capacity other than as a lawyer by a criminal law enforcement agency or
regulatory agency to participate in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule.
11. Rule 4-8.4(d)
a. Engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage,
humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on
any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national
origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or
physical characteristic.
Page 13 of 13