From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...
Florida Bar v. Rodriguez
Florida Supreme Court
959 So. 2d 150 (2007)
Attorney Francisco Rodriguez was a partner in a firm that represented 20 clients who sued DuPont Corporation alleging its fungicide Benlate caused crop damage. Rodriguez was scheduled to serve as first chair at the trials and handled significant hearings. Before the trials, DuPont conditioned a $59,000,0000 settlement offer on the firm entering an agreement restricting its right to practice. Called an engagement agreement, the agreement said that the firm had completed settlement negotiations on behalf of its Benlate clients, it would not pursue future claims against DuPont, and DuPont retained the firm to do possible future hourly work. In exchange, DuPont paid the firm $6,445,000. However, the firm’s Benlate clients still had a right to reject DuPont’s settlement offers, creating a direct conflict of interest. Another firm partner traveled around Florida trying to convince the Benlate clients to accept the settlement. Only one of the clients knew about the engagement agreement. The rest thought the firm represented only their interests. When one client refused to settle, Rodriguez filed a motion to withdraw and a charging lien, pushing the client to settle. Rodriguez did not disclose the engagement agreement to the judge and misrepresented why he wanted to withdraw. Rodriguez also withdrew from representing a second client who refused to settle, again without disclosing the engagement agreement. Meanwhile, the firm held part of the settlement funds in escrow for two years to ensure the settlement agreements remained confidential. In 1997, a Benlate client complained to the Florida Bar (the bar), which initiated an investigation. Rodriguez’s counsel said the bar representatives never asked a question that required Rodriguez to disclose the engagement agreement. Five years later, the bar filed a complaint against Rodriguez. The referee recommended the Florida Supreme Court find Rodriguez violated 11 different ethics rules.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 556,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 556,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.