Background
Attorney LeNina Denisa Hurdle filed a notice of appeal on January 21, 2026, in a case from Sarasota County Circuit Court. The notice was transmitted to the appellate court on January 22, 2026, but lacked the required $300 filing fee. On January 23, the court issued a standard fee order requiring the appellant to submit either the fee or indigency documentation within twenty days, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal and sanctions against counsel.
Attorney Hurdle did not respond to this order or to a follow-up order issued on March 10, 2026, directing her to respond or face sanctions. On April 2, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause, requiring Attorney Hurdle’s appearance at oral argument and offering a purge provision allowing her to cure the violation by April 16, 2026. Attorney Hurdle did not take advantage of this opportunity.
When Attorney Hurdle appeared on April 21, 2026, she explained she was transitioning to a new firm, believed another attorney was handling the appeal, and that the filing fee had been paid that morning. She sought to withdraw, but her motion was inadequate. Despite the court’s April 24 order denying the withdrawal motion without prejudice and providing guidance, Attorney Hurdle did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Attorney Hurdle’s repeated failures to comply with its orders and directives constituted grounds for sanctions. The pattern of non-compliance included: failure to respond to the January 23 fee order; failure to respond to the March 10 order; failure to use the April 2 purge provision; and failure to respond to the April 24 guidance order. The court found that these violations caused unwarranted delays in the appellate process.
Rather than imposing direct sanctions in this order, the court exercised its disciplinary authority by referring the matter to The Florida Bar for investigation and initiation of such proceedings as may be appropriate. This referral permits the state bar to pursue disciplinary action against Attorney Hurdle for her failure to comply with court orders and her conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys must strictly comply with appellate court orders and deadlines, including payment of filing fees and responses to show-cause orders.
- Courts provide purge provisions and cure opportunities to allow attorneys to remedy violations; failure to use these mechanisms can result in more severe consequences.
- Repeated or persistent non-compliance with court directives may result in referral to the state bar for disciplinary investigation and proceedings.
- Explanations such as firm transitions or miscommunications about who is handling a matter do not excuse non-responsiveness to court orders.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that appellate courts will enforce compliance with their procedural orders and that attorneys bear personal responsibility for meeting court-imposed deadlines and directives. The referral to The Florida Bar underscores that systematic non-compliance with court orders is a serious professional conduct violation that can trigger bar disciplinary proceedings, potentially endangering an attorney’s license.
For practitioners, this case serves as a cautionary reminder to maintain organized docket systems for appeal deadlines, to communicate clearly when cases are being transferred between firms or attorneys, and—critically—to respond promptly and substantively to all court orders, including fee orders and orders to show cause. The availability of purge provisions demonstrates courts’ willingness to provide cure opportunities, but attorneys must affirmatively pursue them.