I. Introduction: The Florida Bar vs. Attorney Daniel Uhlfelder
A. Introducing Daniel Uhlfelder and the Current Controversy
Florida attorney Daniel Will Uhlfelder is currently the subject of a formal disciplinary proceeding initiated by The Florida Bar. This action, officially docketed as Supreme Court of Florida Case No. SC2024-0117 , is not an isolated incident but rather stems from the aftermath of a highly publicized lawsuit Uhlfelder filed in 2020. That earlier lawsuit challenged the State of Florida’s, and specifically Governor Ron DeSantis’s, policies and response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The current disciplinary case centers on Uhlfelder’s conduct related to the appeal of that COVID-19 lawsuit, illustrating how actions taken in one legal arena can lead to significant professional scrutiny in another.
B. Understanding The Florida Bar’s Role
To understand the nature of this case, it is essential to recognize the function of The Florida Bar. It is the organization responsible for regulating the practice of law within the state. Its duties include ensuring that attorneys adhere to high standards of professionalism and ethics. A key part of this mandate involves protecting the public by investigating and, when deemed necessary, prosecuting attorneys who are alleged to have engaged in unethical conduct or failed to meet their professional obligations. When The Florida Bar files a formal complaint against an attorney, as it has against Uhlfelder, it signifies that the organization believes there is sufficient cause to investigate whether a breach of these professional standards has occurred. This is not a typical lawsuit between private individuals but rather an action by a regulatory body tasked with upholding the integrity of the legal profession.
C. Purpose of This Report
This report aims to provide a clear and understandable explanation of the disciplinary case against Daniel Uhlfelder for individuals without a specialized legal background. It will address:
- The background events and circumstances that led to The Florida Bar filing its complaint.
- The specific allegations or reasons The Florida Bar is pursuing disciplinary action against Uhlfelder.
- The current procedural status of Case No. SC2024-0117.
D. Important Note on Other Cases
It is worth noting that publicly available legal records sometimes contain information about different legal matters involving individuals with similar names. For instance, some historical records refer to disciplinary actions from 1993 against an attorney named “Daniel” for unrelated conduct. This report, however, focuses exclusively on the current case involving Daniel Will Uhlfelder, specifically The Florida Bar v. Daniel Will Uhlfelder, SC2024-0117, and its direct antecedents.
II. Background: The Seeds of the Dispute – The COVID-19 Lawsuit and Its Appeal
A. Uhlfelder’s Lawsuit Against Governor DeSantis
The chain of events leading to the current disciplinary proceedings began in 2020. On April 8, 2020, Daniel Uhlfelder filed a lawsuit against Governor Ron DeSantis, challenging the state’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. This lawsuit was a matter of significant public attention and legal debate, positioning Uhlfelder as a vocal critic of the administration’s public health policies during a period of widespread concern and uncertainty.
B. The Controversial Appeal and “Frivolous” Designation
After the initial lawsuit encountered legal hurdles, an appeal was pursued. This appeal, however, became a focal point of controversy. The First District Court of Appeal (1st DCA), the appellate court hearing the case, took a critical view of the appeal’s merits. Ultimately, the 1st DCA initiated steps to potentially sanction Uhlfelder and his then-legal partners, identified as Mattox and Kitchen, for filing what the court characterized as a “baseless” or “frivolous” appeal. In legal practice, a “frivolous” designation by a court is a serious matter, indicating that the court found the legal arguments presented to be without a sound basis in law or fact. Such a judicial assessment often triggers concerns about adherence to professional conduct rules, which require attorneys to bring forth only meritorious claims. This strong rebuke from the judiciary appears to have been a direct catalyst for The Florida Bar’s subsequent involvement.
C. The Role of Uhlfelder’s Legal Partners (Mattox and Kitchen)
Attorneys Gautier Kitchen and Marie Mattox were reportedly Uhlfelder’s trial partners in the original DeSantis lawsuit and were also named in connection with the appeal. A central issue that appears to have fueled the Bar’s complaint revolves around the alleged discrepancy between their actual level of participation in the appeal and how their continued involvement (or lack thereof) was communicated, or not communicated, to the 1st DCA. This situation touches upon the delicate balance an attorney must strike between vigorously advocating for a client’s cause—in this instance, a politically charged challenge to government policy—and upholding fundamental duties to the court, particularly the obligation of complete candor regarding who is formally representing a party in legal proceedings.
D. Court Referral to The Florida Bar
Following its determination that the appeal was problematic, the 1st DCA took the significant step of referring the matter of the attorneys’ conduct to The Florida Bar, directing it to open an ethics investigation. This direct referral from the judiciary underscores the gravity with which the court viewed the conduct in question. Unlike complaints that might originate from a client or opposing counsel, a referral from the court itself often signals a perception of a more substantial issue warranting review by the body responsible for overseeing attorney ethics. This action by the 1st DCA effectively transitioned the issue from a dispute within a specific case to a formal inquiry into potential professional misconduct.
III. The Core of the Matter: Allegations Against Uhlfelder in Case SC2024-0117
A. The “Court-Ordered Do-Over”
The current disciplinary case, SC2024-0117, has been described as a “court-ordered do-over”. This terminology suggests that there may have been a prior phase or an earlier attempt within the Bar’s disciplinary system to address the concerns arising from the 1st DCA referral, which was subsequently found to be insufficient or procedurally flawed by a higher authority, likely the Supreme Court of Florida which has ultimate oversight of attorney discipline. The necessity for a “do-over” implies that the initial handling of the grievance or the formulation of charges may have been deemed inadequate, leading to the current, reframed complaint designed for a more definitive or correctly focused proceeding.
B. Specific Allegations by The Florida Bar
The central accusation in this “do-over” proceeding is that Daniel Uhlfelder allegedly misled the 1st DCA through omission. Specifically, The Florida Bar contends that he failed to inform the appellate court that his legal partners, Mattox and Kitchen, were no longer actively participating in the appeal of the DeSantis lawsuit, despite their names potentially remaining associated with the case filings. The Florida Bar alleges that this conduct violated several Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, including:
- Rules against general misconduct.
- Rules prohibiting “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
- Rules requiring “candor toward the tribunal,” which obligates lawyers to be truthful and transparent with courts.
The allegation of “lying by omission” is distinct from an accusation of making an outright false statement. It centers on the assertion that Uhlfelder knew, or should have known, that the court held a mistaken understanding about the composition of his active legal team for the appeal and that he failed to correct this misunderstanding. Such charges, particularly those involving dishonesty and a lack of candor towards a court, are considered serious within the legal profession as they touch upon an attorney’s fundamental duties as an officer of the court.
C. The Florida Bar’s Position
The Florida Bar’s argument appears to be that Uhlfelder had an affirmative duty to ensure the 1st DCA had an accurate understanding of who was actively prosecuting the appeal. His purported failure to correct the court’s assumption that Mattox and Kitchen remained fully involved is presented as a form of deception. A significant element of the Bar’s current case appears to stem from the evolving stance or testimony of Mattox and Kitchen. It is reported that after the 1st DCA began to criticize the appeal as “frivolous” and the prospect of sanctions arose, Mattox and Kitchen insisted that Uhlfelder remove them from what they perceived as an “enormous mess.” Uhlfelder’s alleged failure to comply with this demand, coupled with their subsequent assertions about their non-participation, seems to form a key basis for the Bar’s renewed complaint, which is described as being based on “Mattox and Kitchen’s change of heart”. The timing of this “change of heart”—occurring when the appeal faced severe judicial criticism—is a critical factor. Had they formally and unambiguously withdrawn prior to this scrutiny, the circumstances might be viewed differently. Their apparent desire to distance themselves after the negative judicial attention likely influenced their statements, which in turn informed the Bar’s allegations against Uhlfelder.
D. Uhlfelder’s Reported Defense/Perspective
Daniel Uhlfelder has reportedly presented a contrasting account of these events. He testified that Mattox and Kitchen did not give him any indication that they had abandoned or withdrawn from the appeal until the point when the 1st DCA initiated sanctions proceedings and referred the matter for Bar discipline. Uhlfelder further stated that he considered them to be his attorneys for the appeal and expected their continued representation, citing ongoing communications, discussions about public records requests, and sharing of legal research relevant to the appeal. He also countered that attorneys have a professional obligation to read all court documents that bear their names, implying that Mattox and Kitchen should have been aware of their continued listing as counsel on the appeal and taken action themselves if that was incorrect. This entire situation underscores the critical importance of clear, unambiguous communication and formal documentation regarding legal representation, especially when there are changes within a legal team during active litigation. The absence of such clarity appears to be at the crux of the “lying by omission” allegation.
E. The Testimony of Other Legal Figures
During the disciplinary hearing, The Florida Bar reportedly subpoenaed other prominent legal figures, including Barry Richard (known for his role in Bush v. Gore) and retired 1st DCA Judge Robert Benton. The Bar’s counsel seemingly attempted to establish that Uhlfelder might have also misrepresented the nature of his relationship with these individuals, perhaps by implying they were formally his lawyers. However, this line of inquiry reportedly “backfired,” as both Richard and Benton testified that their involvement was limited to informal consultations with Uhlfelder and his father, attorney Steve Uhlfelder (now deceased), during the period when the 1st DCA was considering sanctions. Furthermore, it was reported that Judge Benton, along with former Florida Supreme Court Justice R. Fred Lewis, submitted affidavits to The Florida Bar on Uhlfelder’s behalf. Justice Lewis’s affidavit included a statement questioning the appropriateness of The Florida Bar disciplining an attorney for criticizing the Governor’s COVID-19 decisions , introducing a broader commentary on the context of the disciplinary action.
IV. Navigating the Legal Process: Current Status and Key Events in Case SC2024-0117
A. Case Identification and Timeline
The formal disciplinary proceeding is The Florida Bar vs. Daniel Will Uhlfelder, docketed in the Supreme Court of Florida under Case No. SC2024-0117. The complaint that initiated this specific Supreme Court case was filed on January 25, 2024. This case also carries an “Originating Court” number of 2021-00,299(8B) , which likely refers to an earlier Florida Bar file number or a previous stage in the grievance committee or investigative process, hinting at the “do-over” nature of the current proceedings.
B. Appointment of a Referee
In Florida Bar disciplinary matters, the Supreme Court of Florida typically appoints a referee, often a sitting or retired judge, to oversee the evidentiary phase of the case. The referee conducts hearings, considers evidence and testimony from both The Florida Bar and the respondent attorney, and then submits a report to the Supreme Court containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for discipline if misconduct is found. In this case, the Honorable Greg S. Parker, a judge from the 3rd Judicial Circuit, was appointed as the referee. Orders related to his appointment were issued around January 25 and January 31, 2024.
C. Key Docket Entries and Hearings
The official court docket for SC2024-0117 reveals several key developments since the complaint was filed:
- January 25, 2024: The Florida Bar filed its formal complaint with the Supreme Court of Florida.
- April 8, 2025: The final evidentiary hearing was held before Referee Gregory Stuart Parker. (One report mentioned the hearing spanned April 8-9 , but docket entries specify transcripts for April 8).
- May 14, 2025: The transcript of the final hearing was filed with the court. On the same day, Uhlfelder filed a Motion to Correct the Record, and a corrected transcript was subsequently filed.
- May 15, 2025: Daniel Uhlfelder, through his counsel, filed his Closing Argument.
- Extensions for Referee’s Report: The deadline for the referee to file his report has been extended multiple times through agreed motions. Initial orders on July 15, 2024, and January 10, 2025, set earlier deadlines. The most recent order, dated May 27, 2025, granted an extension, allowing the referee until July 31, 2025, to file his report.
The case is clearly progressing through the established disciplinary channels, with active participation from both The Florida Bar and Uhlfelder’s legal team, as evidenced by filings such as closing arguments and agreed motions for extensions.
D. Current Status of the Case
As of the latest available information, the case The Florida Bar v. Daniel Will Uhlfelder, SC2024-0117, is designated as “Open”. The immediate next step anticipated is the submission of the Referee’s Report. The deadline for this report to be filed is currently July 31, 2025. The multiple extensions granted for the filing of the referee’s report may suggest several possibilities: the complexity of the evidence and testimony presented, the need for thorough deliberation by the referee on the contested facts and ethical arguments, or simply scheduling considerations. The relatively extended period between the final hearing in April 2025 and the current July 2025 deadline for the report could imply that the referee is meticulously weighing the conflicting narratives, particularly regarding the communications and expectations between Uhlfelder and his former partners, as well as the nuanced legal arguments concerning “candor toward the tribunal” and “misrepresentation by omission.”
E. What Happens After the Referee’s Report?
Once Referee Parker files his report with the Supreme Court of Florida, it will typically include his findings regarding the facts of the case, a determination as to whether any of the alleged rule violations occurred, and, if misconduct is found, a recommended disciplinary sanction. Following the filing of this report, both The Florida Bar and Daniel Uhlfelder will generally have an opportunity to submit briefs to the Supreme Court of Florida, either supporting or challenging the referee’s findings and recommendations. The Supreme Court of Florida, which has the ultimate authority over attorney discipline in the state, will then review the entire record, the referee’s report, and any arguments made by the parties before issuing its final order. This final order will determine whether Uhlfelder is to be disciplined and, if so, the nature of that discipline.
Table: Key Milestones in The Florida Bar v. Daniel Will Uhlfelder (SC2024-0117)
| Date | Event/Development | Source(s) |
|---|---|---|
| January 25, 2024 | Complaint filed by The Florida Bar; Referee appointment process initiated | |
| January 31, 2024 | Hon. Greg S. Parker formally appointed as Referee | |
| April 8, 2025 | Final Hearing held before the Referee | |
| May 14, 2025 | Transcript of Final Hearing filed; Motion to Correct Record filed by Uhlfelder | |
| May 15, 2025 | Daniel Uhlfelder’s Closing Argument filed | |
| May 27, 2025 | Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Referee’s Report granted | |
| July 31, 2025 | Current deadline for Referee’s Report to be filed |
V. Potential Consequences: What Uhlfelder Faces
A. Range of Disciplinary Actions by The Florida Bar
If the referee finds, and the Supreme Court of Florida ultimately agrees, that Daniel Uhlfelder committed the ethical violations alleged by The Florida Bar, a range of disciplinary sanctions could be imposed. These sanctions vary in severity and are intended to address the misconduct, protect the public, and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. As one report noted, Uhlfelder faces potential punishment “ranging from a mild rebuke to a costly suspension to a life-changing loss of his license to practice law”. Based on general Florida Bar disciplinary practices and recent examples of actions taken by the Florida Supreme Court in other cases , potential outcomes include:
- Reprimand (Public or Private): A formal censure or scolding for the misconduct.
- Probation: The attorney is allowed to continue practicing law but under specific conditions, which might include supervision or educational requirements.
- Suspension: The attorney’s license to practice law is temporarily revoked for a defined period (e.g., 30 days, six months, one year, or longer).
- Disciplinary Revocation: The attorney may voluntarily surrender their law license, sometimes with the possibility of applying for readmission after a certain period, and sometimes without such leave.
- Disbarment: This is the most severe sanction, involving the permanent or very long-term revocation of an attorney’s license, effectively ending their ability to practice law in Florida. Additionally, it is common for the Supreme Court to order that the attorney bear the costs of the disciplinary proceedings if misconduct is found.
The specific allegations against Uhlfelder—particularly those concerning “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” and a lack of “candor toward the tribunal” —are generally viewed as serious ethical breaches. Such violations directly impact the trustworthiness of an attorney and the integrity of the judicial process. Consequently, if these allegations are proven, they could potentially lead to significant sanctions, including suspension from practice or even disbarment, depending on the referee’s detailed findings of fact and the Supreme Court’s final judgment.
B. Factors Influencing Discipline
The specific disciplinary sanction imposed in any given case is not arbitrary. It depends on a careful consideration of multiple factors. These typically include:
- The nature and severity of the proven misconduct.
- Any harm caused to clients, the public, or the administration of justice.
- The attorney’s prior disciplinary history (no information in the provided materials indicates a relevant prior history for Uhlfelder concerning this type of offense).
- The presence of any mitigating circumstances (factors that might lessen the perceived severity of the misconduct or argue for leniency) or aggravating circumstances (factors that might increase the severity or argue for a harsher penalty).
The outcome of Uhlfelder’s case, whatever it may be, could serve as an important reminder within the Florida legal community about the high expectations for transparency and accuracy in communications with the courts, especially concerning the composition of legal teams. It may also reinforce the potential seriousness with which allegations of “lying by omission” are treated by the disciplinary system.
VI. In Summary: Understanding the Uhlfelder Case
A. Recapping the Journey
The disciplinary case currently before the Supreme Court of Florida, The Florida Bar v. Daniel Will Uhlfelder (SC2024-0117), is a complex matter with roots in Uhlfelder’s prominent 2020 lawsuit challenging Florida’s COVID-19 policies. The present ethics charges arose from the conduct associated with the appeal of that initial lawsuit, specifically actions scrutinized by the First District Court of Appeal.
B. The Core Allegation
At its heart, The Florida Bar’s complaint accuses Uhlfelder of failing to be fully forthcoming with the appellate court regarding the active participation status of his legal partners in the COVID-19 appeal. This alleged failure is characterized as a misrepresentation by omission and a breach of his duty of candor to the court. Uhlfelder has contested these allegations, presenting a different perspective on the events and communications with his former partners.
C. Current Standing
The disciplinary case is active and ongoing. A final evidentiary hearing before an appointed referee, Judge Greg S. Parker, has concluded. The parties are now awaiting Judge Parker’s report, which will contain his findings and recommendations. This report is currently due by July 31, 2025. Following the submission of this report, the Supreme Court of Florida will make the ultimate determination regarding any misconduct and potential disciplinary sanctions.
D. Broader Implications
This case, like all attorney disciplinary proceedings conducted by The Florida Bar, serves as a public manifestation of the legal profession’s self-regulatory mechanism. The Florida Bar’s stated mission includes ensuring that lawyers uphold the highest ethical standards to protect the public and maintain trust in the legal system. The proceedings against Uhlfelder, stemming from a lawsuit that itself was politically charged and involved criticism of state authorities, demonstrate that this disciplinary system is designed to operate and scrutinize attorney conduct regardless of the political sensitivities or high-profile nature of an attorney’s prior legal battles.
The trajectory of this matter—from a public interest lawsuit concerning governmental pandemic responses to a deeply personal ethics trial for the attorney who filed it—illustrates the significant professional responsibilities and potential pitfalls faced by legal practitioners. It highlights the intense scrutiny that can arise when an attorney’s advocacy, case management practices, and professional relationships come under judicial or peer review, particularly within the context of contentious and highly visible litigation. The final outcome will be determined by the specific facts found by the referee and the legal conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court of Florida.
SOURCES:
•floridabar.org The Florida Bar Opens in a new window
•floridabar.org June 1, 2025 Disciplinary Actions – The Florida Bar Opens in a new window •law.justia.com The Florida Bar v. Daniel :: 1993 – Justia Law Opens in a new window
•acis.flcourts.gov Daniel W. Uhlfelder VS The Honorable Ron DeSantis, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Florida Opens in a new window
•floridabulldog.org Florida Bar finally puts DeSantis critic on trial, but strategy backfires Opens in a new window
•acis.flcourts.gov Case View – The Florida Bar v. Daniel Will Uhlfelder Opens in a new window Sources read but not used in the report