Attorney misconduct of the Florida Bar in prosecuting attorney misconduct - what else is new

I've just submitted (two days ago) a motion for rehearing of my constitutional appeal as of right in my disciplinary case, the last step before going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I will publish the entire motion and comment on it in a separate blog, today or tomorrow.

One of the prominent issues in my case was misconduct of New York State disciplinary authority in prosecuting me for alleged attorney misconduct - where New York State disciplinary authorities actually refused to prosecute themselves for multiple disciplinary violations and dismissed complaints against themselves.

A similar situation of misconduct is currently unfolding in Florida.

There, an attorney who was consulted about a disciplinary case by the subjects of the disciplinary investigation and prosecution, then switched sides and ghost-wrote an affidavit for the prosecutors, while reportedly making false claims in that affidavit into the bargain.

The lawyers - same as I did in my case - requested dismissal of the disciplinary proceedings based on prosecutorial misconduct, because it goes without saying that an attorney misconduct proceeding cannot be prosecuted with the help of attorney misconduct.

Here, attorney misconduct was apparent.

1) There was a conflict of interest in the attorney initially contacted about representing the defense side to switch to the prosecution side;

2) There was misconduct of the prosecution side to accept such help and allow the former defense attorney in the same case to ghost-write a pleading for the prosecution;

3) There is misconduct on the side of the former defense attorney and the disciplinary prosecutors to submit such a pleading to the court, and to submit a false affidavit to the court.

Definitely, means by which the government acts, matter.

And definitely, the attorneys who were and still are subjects of investigation and prosecution in Florida, irrespective of whether they actually did or did not do anything wrong, were deprived of their due process right of an impartial prosecutor, and to have elementary honesty in proceedings.

A disciplinary prosecutor should be squeaky clean and practice what he preaches, first and foremost.

Shouldn't he?