Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prof. Corsmeier
PLA 3703-1843
6 July 2020
Description of Lawyer
David Drake Sharpe of Tampa, FL was admitted to the bar April 17, 2008. While he was
not certified in any area of the law, Mr. Sharpe provided legal service in Probate and Trust,
Mr. Sharpe was disbarred and ordered to pay costs by The Supreme Court of Florida.
The consequences imposed were due to Mr. Sharpe’s actions which violated Rules 4-3.1
(non-meritorious claims), 4-3.2 (failure to expedite litigation), and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial
Beginning in October, 2014, Mr. Sharpe committed the rule violations listed above
numerous times throughout his advocacy. The violations occurred during 3 cases referred to as
He violated rule 4-3.1 and 4-3.2 by filing frivolous motions to intentionally delay
litigation in the three cases listed above, and documented within the Complaint and Findings of
Fact reports. Additionally, he would not comply with court orders and repeatedly chose not to
appear for scheduled hearings resulting in delays in some cases and default rulings for himself
probate estate and misrepresented the current status of the probate case during a related
foreclosure case. This misrepresentation led to a ruling at the expense of the client and a
Mr. Sharpe continued to demonstrate the same unethical behaviors throughout the case
brought against him by The Florida Bar as he did during his representation in the cases, above.
He requested frivolous, unmerited continuations and extensions and simply did not show up at
hearings. Ultimately, his absence led to a default judgment in favor of The Florida Bar as he
Rule 4-3.1 (non-meritorious claims) - Lawyers are not allowed to bring or defend a case or
advocate for an issue that is not necessary or important, including arguments for extension(s) or
modification(s).
Rule 4-3.2 (failure to expedite litigation) - Lawyers have a duty to make litigation happen as
Rule 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) - Lawyers cannot practice law
with prejudice of the administration of law toward or against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court
There is no way to know why Mr. Sharpe chose the course of action which led to
issue is that his ill behavior negatively impacts public perception of lawyers, as a whole. While
ethical behavior might seem to be common sense for most attorneys, in Mr. Sharpe’s case, a
review of the Rules of Professional Conduct is in order. The problem is, as the saying goes,
“one bad apple spoils the bunch,” and the public’s perception of all attorneys is tarnished due to
the few attorneys like Mr. Sharpe who exist among the whole.
Mr. Sharpe should have taken on a strict policy of preforming his duties ethically. He
could have accomplished this by communicating effectively with his clients, refusing to take
actions to deliberately delay proceedings, and behaving honestly with his clients and the court.
He should have complied with his duties of diligence. Mr. Sharpe showed lack of
diligence in his representation of his clients resulting in default judgments to the detriment of his
clients. Had Mr. Sharpe followed the Rules of Professional Conduct, he might still be living and