The Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 11 attorneys, disbarring two, suspending seven, and revoking the licenses of two. Two attorneys were ordered to pay restitution.

John Douglas Anderson, 4851 W Gandy Blvd., B6 L25, Tampa, suspended for three years effective 30 days following a January 12 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2003) Anderson, in one matter, failed to competently handle a bond hearing and made a misrepresentation to the court regarding his trial experience. The court passed the matter after the client requested new counsel and Anderson left the courthouse prior to discharge. In a second matter Anderson failed to provide the client a written free agreement that memorialized the intent of the parties, failed to deposit and hold client funds in trust, and failed to competently handle the post-conviction appeals to which he was retained. In a third matter, Anderson failed to competently and diligently handle an adoption to which he was retained to represent the petitioner. The court found Anderson in indirect civil contempt of court for failure to file the necessary documents. (Case No: SC20-1642)

David Garrett Blake, 1711 W. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, suspended for one year effective 30 days following a January 6 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2004) In one matter, Blake failed to diligently represent a client in his personal injury matter and failed to reasonably communicate with the client. Blake was not truthful to the client regarding the progression of the client’s case, nor was he truthful to the Bar in his sworn statement and he divulged confidential information that was not reasonably necessary to respond to the client’s allegations nor to establish a defense on Blake’s behalf. In a second matter, Blake was suspended from the practice of law for 179 days by the State Bar of Michigan for failing to provide competent representation to his clients; failing to seek the lawful objectives of his clients; failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients; failing to reasonably communicate with clients; bringing or defending an action that was frivolous; failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation in the interest of his clients; and engaging in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals. (Case No: SC21-903)