## Facts

- Susan K. Glant was an attorney with Central Florida Legal Services (CFLS).
- In 1991, Glant was assigned to represent a mother in a custody matter involving four minor children: two daughters and two sons.
- The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) was supervising the family. At one point, all four children had been removed from the father’s home following sexual-abuse allegations, but HRS did not litigate those allegations due to insufficient evidence.
- The mother’s stated objectives were limited: end HRS supervision and keep custody of her two daughters; the two sons would remain with the father under the existing arrangement.
- Glant understood the mother did not want custody of all four children.
- Glant attended a June 1991 hearing where she was expected to recommend that HRS end its supervision while keeping the existing split-custody arrangement (girls with the mother, boys with the father).
- After the hearing, based on Glant’s belief that the father was sexually abusing the daughters, Glant sent a letter to HRS headquarters requesting further investigation.
- With the letter, Glant attached an unfiled motion for custody modification seeking to award the mother custody of all four children.
- Glant asserted that sending the letter and motion was required or justified by the ethics rules, including Rule 4-1.2(d) (prohibiting assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct) and Rule 4-1.6(b) (permitting certain disclosures to prevent harm).
- CFLS asked Glant to resign, and The Florida Bar filed a disciplinary complaint alleging that Glant violated Rule 4-1.2(a) by acting contrary to the client’s objectives.
- A referee found a violation and recommended a public reprimand, noting Glant had no prior disciplinary history. Glant sought review in the Florida Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Glant violated Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.2(a) by sending HRS a letter and an unfiled custody-modification motion seeking custody of all four children, despite knowing her client did not want that objective.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution to review the referee’s report.
- The Court approved the referee’s finding that Glant violated Rule 4-1.2(a) by acting contrary to the client’s decisions about the objectives of the representation.
- The Court rejected Glant’s reliance on Rules 4-1.2(d) and 4-1.6(b) as a justification on this record.
- The Court approved the referee’s recommended discipline and ordered a public reprimand.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer must follow the client’s decisions regarding the objectives of the representation and must consult with the client regarding the means used to pursue those objectives. Fla. R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.2(a).
- A lawyer may not substitute the lawyer’s own preferred objective (including a belief about a child’s best interests) for the client’s lawful objective without the client’s authorization.
- Ethical rules concerning criminal or fraudulent conduct (Rule 4-1.2(d)) do not excuse disregarding client objectives absent a concrete showing that the client is engaging in, or will engage in, criminal or fraudulent conduct that the lawyer would assist.
- Confidentiality exceptions allowing disclosure to prevent death or substantial bodily harm (Rule 4-1.6(b)) require a sufficient factual basis; a generalized or speculative fear of harm is not enough to justify unilateral action that changes the client’s objectives.
- In attorney discipline matters, the Florida Supreme Court generally accepts a referee’s factual findings when supported by competent, substantial evidence and will not reweigh the evidence.

## Conclusion

In *Florida Bar v. Susan K. Glant*, the Florida Supreme Court held that Glant violated Rule 4-1.2(a) when she sought custody relief inconsistent with her client’s stated goals by sending HRS a letter and an unfiled motion requesting custody of all four children, and the Court approved a public reprimand as the appropriate sanction.


Florida Bar v. Susan K. Glant, 645 So. 962 (1994)