Background
Kenneth Chesebro, a member of The Florida Bar, was indicted in Fulton County, Georgia on multiple felony charges arising from alleged election fraud and interference with the 2020 presidential election. He ultimately pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Filing False Documents — specifically, Count 15 of the indictment, which alleged that Chesebro and co-defendants conspired to knowingly file a fraudulent slate of Georgia presidential electors with the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Chesebro was sentenced to five years of felony probation.
The Florida Bar filed a Notice of Determination or Judgment of Guilt following the conviction, and The Florida Supreme Court referred the matter to a referee. After an evidentiary hearing, the referee recommended a finding of guilt and a 30-day suspension from the practice of law. Separately, the Court had entered a felony suspension on October 28, 2024, pending resolution of the disciplinary proceeding.
The case presented an unusual procedural wrinkle: Chesebro’s conviction was entered under Georgia’s First Offender Act, and his probation was subsequently terminated early. Under Georgia law, he was thereby “exonerated of guilt” and “discharged as a matter of law,” with the Georgia trial court declaring that he “shall not be considered to have ever had a criminal conviction.” Chesebro did not dispute, however, that he aided in the filing of a false certificate in federal court.
The Court’s Holding
The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee’s recommendation as to guilt — accepting that Chesebro’s admitted conduct constituted misconduct warranting discipline — but disapproved the referee’s recommended 30-day suspension. Instead, the Court imposed a public reprimand and directed Chesebro to attend The Florida Bar’s Ethics School under the conditions set forth in the referee’s report. The Court also lifted the felony suspension entered in October 2024 and reinstated Chesebro to the practice of law effective immediately.
The majority grounded its choice of sanction in the unique posture created by Chesebro’s full discharge under the Georgia First Offender Act. While acknowledging that suspension or a more serious sanction would ordinarily have been appropriate given the conduct at issue, the Court held that Chesebro’s statutory exoneration was a material fact that could not be ignored in fashioning the appropriate remedy. Exercising its ultimate authority to determine sanctions, the Court concluded a reprimand struck the proper balance between enforcing professional standards and respecting the legal effect of the Georgia judgment.
Justice Tanenbaum concurred in the administrative disposition but dissented as to the judgment for costs. Justice Labarga dissented from the sanction, arguing that a public reprimand is inconsistent with the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions because those standards reserve reprimand for negligent conduct, whereas Chesebro’s submission of fraudulent electoral documents was knowing and intentional — and, in Justice Labarga’s view, among the most egregious ethical transgressions a lawyer can commit.
Key Takeaways
- A Florida attorney’s full discharge under Georgia’s First Offender Act — resulting in statutory exoneration and a declaration of no criminal conviction — is a mitigating fact that the Florida Supreme Court will weigh when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction, even where the underlying misconduct is undisputed.
- The Court distinguished between the finding of guilt (approved) and the recommended sanction (disapproved), illustrating that it retains independent authority to calibrate discipline regardless of referee recommendations.
- Justice Labarga’s dissent puts on record a competing view that knowingly submitting fraudulent documents to a federal court is categorically serious attorney misconduct that warrants at minimum suspension under the Florida Standards, irrespective of subsequent state-law exoneration.
- Chesebro’s felony suspension, in place since October 2024, was lifted and he was immediately reinstated, underscoring that the Court treated the exoneration as dispositive on the question of continued suspension.
Why It Matters
This decision addresses an unresolved tension in bar discipline proceedings: how should a state bar court treat a conviction that has been legally erased by a sister state’s rehabilitative statute? The Florida Supreme Court’s answer — that exoneration mitigates but does not eliminate discipline for admitted misconduct — provides guidance for future cases involving attorneys whose out-of-state convictions are subsequently discharged under first-offender or diversion programs. It affirms that Florida will exercise independent judgment rather than simply deferring to, or ignoring, another state’s legal disposition.
The case also draws attention because of its political context: Chesebro was among the attorneys charged in connection with efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, and the false-electors scheme at the heart of Count 15 involved the submission of fraudulent documents to a federal court. Justice Labarga’s dissent — characterizing knowing fraud upon the court as “one of the most egregious ethical transgressions a lawyer can commit” — signals ongoing disagreement within the Court about whether the majority’s resolution adequately vindicates the integrity of the judicial system.