The Florida Bar has turned over the closed Brenda v. Blog file, pursuant to a public records request. As with other closed files we’ve received from them, it seems wildly incomplete, with loads of duplications of documents, emails, and newspaper articles that would have already been in the possession of the parties. Whether or not the obviously missing information is deemed work product or otherwise somehow exempt, remains to be seen.*

For whatever reason, an interesting email was included, possibly by mistake, pictured below. Full information leading up to the request that’s the subject of the memo is not included, and there’s nothing provided that explains how the hiring of a 1st Amendment outside counsel issue was concluded. In any event, all those who believe Brenda v. Blog was being driven by Tallahassee and not Brenda, have seemingly been proven correct …

So there you have it. Interested parties to Brenda v. Blog included Adria Quintela, at the time head of lawyer regulation in Tallahassee and now a law professor at FSU, who was also involved locally in the Bobby Diaz and Marni Bryson focused complaints back when Ken Marvin was in charge. Also “Josh,” believed to be Josh Doyle, the Executive Director of the Bar, and Jack Tuter, together with unnamed “numerous Broward County judges,” all ostensibly in support of Brenda’s attack on the only unfettered, 1st Amendment defending courthouse blog on the planet …

SS – GC dismisses Forman’s complaints


* While the above post was being written, the following email was received concerning the missing components of the file:

Rule 3-7.1(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar states that “[A]ll records including files, preliminary investigation reports, interoffice memoranda, records of investigations, and the records in trials and other proceedings under these rules, except those disciplinary matters conducted in circuit courts, are property of The Florida Bar. All of those matters are confidential and will not be disclosed except as provided in these rules.”

Subsection (b) them identifies what the Bar considered the “public record” subject to disclosure – “[T]he public record consists of the record before a grievance committee, the record before a referee, the record before the Supreme Court of Florida, and any reports, correspondence, papers, recordings, and/or transcripts of hearings furnished to, served on, or received from the respondent or the complainant.”

You have previously been provided the entire public record.

SS – Sandy D’Alemberte on Brenda v. Blog