June 26, 2025 – It’s been a week for sharp words, sharp reversals, and sharper reminders about where the line is between advocacy and misconduct. Here’s what’s new in Florida family law and legal ethics:
🔴 Girley Gets 30 Days: Free Speech Has Limits When You’ve Taken the Oath
In Fla. Bar v. Girley, the Florida Supreme Court suspended two civil rights attorneys for 30 days after they accused white judges on social media and in interviews of deliberately blocking monetary awards for Black litigants. The Court agreed with the referee’s finding that this wasn’t fearless advocacy—it was a breach of professional duty. Violations included impugning judicial integrity (Rule 4-8.2), conduct prejudicial to justice (Rule 3-4.3), and a violation of their attorney oath. The Court rejected their due process arguments and found the 30-day suspension warranted.
Lesson: The First Amendment doesn’t insulate you from bar discipline when you’re an officer of the court.
⚖️ Cohen v. Stubblefield: No Expert Needed for Fees in Chapter 61 Cases
In a win for efficiency, the Fourth DCA reversed a trial court that denied attorney’s fees because no expert testified to their reasonableness. Under §61.16(1), no expert is needed in family law—even when fees arise under a marital settlement agreement.
Lesson: Reasonable fees don’t need a Ph.D. to prove they’re reasonable—at least not in Florida family court.
🚫 Wiendl v. Wiendl: Sanctions Gone Too Far
The Second DCA slapped down a trial court for barring a pro se former husband from representing himself as a sanction for “abusive litigation”—without giving him notice or a chance to be heard.
Lesson: Even the most difficult litigant gets a warning shot. Due process means what it says.
👩⚖️ Squires v. Squires: No Findings? No Problem (When Denying Modifications)
In a clean but quiet ruling, the Fifth DCA clarified that courts don’t need to make specific written findings when denying a petition to modify child support or timesharing.
Lesson: Silence from the bench might not mean much—unless it’s granting relief.
⚖️ Saladino v. Saladino: Post-Judgment Pitfalls
The Second DCA reversed a contempt order against a former husband for violating a prejudgment standing order—after the final judgment had already been entered. Even worse? The relief granted wasn’t what the former wife had even requested.
Lesson: Courts can’t hold you in contempt for violating ghosts. And they can’t grant what wasn’t pled.
Final Takeaway:
These cases remind us that due process isn’t optional, accusations come with professional risk, and when it comes to attorney’s fees in family court—you don’t need an expert, just good judgment.
Stay sharp out there.
—
Brian Fell is a Florida family law attorney and certified mediator. This post is for informational purposes only and not legal advice.