(561) 764-4041 [email protected]

The recent Florida appellate panel decision, as reported by Law360, highlights a pivotal moment in the intersection of legal settlements, attorney obligations, and Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation in Florida. The panel’s decision to reverse a lower court’s ruling, which had found attorney Macy D. Hanson in violation of settlement agreements for his public disparagement and dissemination of filings in prior cases, brings to light several critical issues within the legal profession and Anti-SLAPP legislation. Hanson was represented by Joshua Horton, a local Palm Beach County attorney in the state court action, case no. 2020-CA-011664 in the 15th Judicial Circuit.

Anti-SLAPP in Florida

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect individuals from lawsuits that are filed primarily to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of legal defense. Florida’s Anti-SLAPP legislation, codified in Fla. Stat. §§ 768.295 and 768.296, aims to prevent these abusive lawsuits by allowing defendants to quickly dismiss claims targeting their free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate panel’s decision indirectly touches upon the spirit of Anti-SLAPP laws by reinforcing the principle that non-parties, including attorneys, should not be unduly bound by settlement agreements, thereby protecting their right to free speech and participation in legal discourse. These issues were also raised with the trial court in front of Judge Gillman, (now Kilbane) before her ascension to the 5th District Court of Appeals.

Implications on the Legal Profession

The ruling emphasizes the importance of explicit consent and intention for an individual, particularly a non-party attorney, to be bound by a settlement agreement. This decision is crucial for maintaining the integrity of legal representation and the attorney-client relationship. If clients could bind their attorneys to settlement agreements merely by reference, without the attorneys being a party or a signatory, it would pose significant ethical and practical challenges. Such a precedent could undermine the independence of legal counsel, restrict attorneys’ ability to represent future clients in related matters, and potentially infringe upon the lawyers’ First Amendment rights.

Ethical Considerations Under Florida Rules of Professional Conduct

The potential for attorneys to be bound by settlements they have not agreed to raises profound ethical concerns, particularly in the context of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 4-1.2(d) prohibits a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent but allows a lawyer to discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client. Binding an attorney to a settlement agreement they did not sign or agree to could conflict with this rule by limiting their ability to provide candid legal advice or to represent clients in future disputes against the same party.

Moreover, Rule 4-1.6(a) concerning confidentiality of information could also be implicated. If attorneys were inadvertently bound by non-disparagement or confidentiality provisions of a settlement agreement, it could restrict their ability to use information obtained during the representation of a client, even when such use would not disadvantage the client.

In conclusion, the Florida appellate panel’s decision underscores the need for clear boundaries and explicit consent in binding parties and non-parties to settlement agreements. It reaffirms the protection of legal advocacy and free speech within the confines of Anti-SLAPP legislation and ethical legal practice, ensuring that attorneys retain their ability to zealously represent their clients without undue restriction. This ruling not only impacts the legal profession in Florida but also serves as a precedent for the interpretation of settlement agreements and attorney obligations nationwide.