UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION
LESLIE FERDERIGOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO.: 6:23-cv-00189-WWB-LHP
THE FLORIDA BAR and,
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,
KAREN CLARK BANKOWITZ,
in her personal capacitty and
JOSHUA E. DOYLE, in his
official capacity as Executive Director
of THE FLORIDA BAR
Defendants.
____________________________/

LESLIE FERDERIGOS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL

AND TO AMEND TO SUE FOR CLAIMS FOR WHICH THIS
COURT CAN PROVIDE MEANINGFUL RELIEF

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Leslie Ferderigos [hereinafter

“PLAINTIFF”], files this Motion to Vacate the Dismissal and To Amend

To Sue for Claims For Which This Court Can Provide Meaningful Relief,

pursuant to Rule 15(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., as follows:

1. On August 21, 2023, this Court adopted the Report and

Recommendations and dismissed the Plaintiff’s 2nd Amended

Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See ECF 55 p.1-2.

2. On June 9, 2023, a Report and Recommendation was filed by the

Magistrate which states” because the rules of discipline no longer

apply to Plaintiff as she permanently retired, the Court is unable

to provide her meaningful relief through a declaration that the

rules of discipline are unconstitutional. See ECF 46 pp. 3-4. The

Second Amended Complaint had centered on how the attorney

disciplinary process did not afford her constitutional protections

afforded to her under federal law. See ECF 46 p. 2.

3. However, because the Plaintiff retired her law license in Florida

after the filing of her 2nd Amended Complaint, this Court dismissed

her Complaint without prejudice for lack of standing, since her

status changed from an active attorney to retired attorney during

the course of this case.

4. On August 16, 2023, a Notice of Filing Newly Discovered Evidence

was filed by Erwin Rosenberg. This evidence demonstrates the

Plaintiff’s decision to voluntarily retire from the practice of law in

Florida was conditioned on her ability to maintain this lawsuit.

Furthermore, it demonstrates the Defendants knowledge of this

 lawsuit remaining active when they approved the Plaintiff’s

Petition for Permanent Retirement.

5. Following the 2nd Amended Complaint dismissed by this Court,

members of The Florida Bar have taken coercive measures, forcing

the Plaintiff to retire her Florida license or continue to endure

extreme unconscionable treatment that was injurious in nature.

6. The Plaintiff seeks to add facts, claims, and additional Defendant(s)

that continue to violate her constitutional rights of federal law

specifically related to the original complaint filed in this case. The

post-retirement conduct from the Defendant(s) continues to injury

the Plaintiff and this Court can provide meaningful relief for the

allegations and arguments brought forth in the 3rd Amended

Complaint.

ARGUMENT

A court can vacate a judgment and allow a plaintiff to file an amended

Complaint. See Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F. 2d 594, 598

(Former 5th Cir. 1981)(footnote omitted):

Instances abound in which appellate courts on review have

required that leave to amend be granted after dismissal or entry of
judgment. For instance, in Foman v. Davis, the plaintiff alleged
 breach of an oral contract. When the district court dismissed on the
basis of the defendant's argument that the Statute of Frauds
rendered the contract unenforceable, the plaintiff moved to vacate
the dismissal and to amend to sue in quantum meruit. The
Supreme Court required that the amendment be permitted even
though it changed the theory of the case. 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227,
9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); accord, Bamm v. GAF, 5 Cir. 1981, 651 F.2d
389; Lone Star Motor Import v. Citroen Cars, 5 Cir. 1961, 288 F.2d
69; Sherman v. Hallbauer, 5 Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 1236.[2]

LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS is not only making claims against the

current entities but also making related claims against new defendants,

one KAREN CLARK BANKOWITZ who was the Bar Counsel in the

disciplinary cases that prompted this federal lawsuit and the other is an

official capacity claim against the Executive Director of THE FLORIDA

BAR, JOSHUA DOYLE, ESQ. pursuant to Ex Parte Young..

THE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT

WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS COURT CAN PROVIDE
MEANINGFUL RELIEF

Plaintiff 2nd Amended Complaint Was Dismissed WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for the following reasons: The Report and Recommendation

argued all claims in the Plaintiff’s complaint are moot because she had

permanently retired from practicing law in Florida and is not eligible for
reinstatement or readmission. As such, this court could not give the

Plaintiff…meaningful relief because it would become an impermissible

advisory opinion. 1 Regardless, of the Plaintiff status of a retired

attorney, the Plaintiff claims she was coerced and harmed because of the

unconstitutionality of Chapter 3 Rules for Discipline and continues to be

harmed as her status of a retired attorney.

Thus, the Plaintiff should be allowed to file a 3rd Amended Complaint

alleging new facts, arguments, and parties.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests this Court to allow the Plaintiff to

file a 3rd Amended Complaint for the following reasons stated above.

Respectfully submitted on September 6, 2023

/s/Leslie Ferderigos

1
See Report and Recommendation ECF 46 p.3-5 Upon consideration, the undersigned will recommend
that this matter be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on mootness grounds, and that
Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary be rejected. To the extent that Plaintiff has argued that the Chapter
3 Rules of Discipline are unconstitutional and seeks a declaration or injunctive relief regarding same,
because she has permanently retired as a Florida attorney, those rules no longer apply to her, rendering
her constitutional arguments moot. See Rule 1-3.5(d), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (“A member who
is approved to permanently retire is not eligible for reinstatement or readmission.”). See also Keohane
v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr. Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1267 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[A] case must be dismissed as moot “[i]f
events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit . . . deprive the court of the ability to give the
plaintiff . . . meaningful relief.” grant Plaintiffs the requested declaratory judgments, this Court would
have to engage in a purely hypothetical or academic exercise. Article III plainly prohibits such
impermissible advisory opinions.”
 LOCAL RULE 3.01(g) CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the undersigned has attempted to confer with

Defendants by contacting Defendants through email on September 6,

2023 to schedule a meet and confer discussion, that the parties have not

yet conferred regarding the Defendant’s position on the relief requested

in this motion, and that undersigned counsel will promptly file an

updated Local Rule 3.01(g) Certification after the parties have conferred

/s/ Leslie Ferderigos

Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has

been furnished on September 6, 2023, via the Court’s CM/ECF system

to counsel of record who have appeared in this case and Plaintiff.

/s/ Leslie Ferderigos

Plaintiff
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 6:23-CV-00189-WWB-LHP
LESLIE FERDERIGOS,
Plaintiff,

v.
THE FLORIDA BAR and,
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,
KAREN CLARK BANKOWITZ,
in her personal capacitty and
JOSHUA E. DOYLE, in his
official capacity as Executive Director
of THE FLORIDA BAR
Defendants.
PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Leslie Ferderigos, [hereinafter “Ferderigos” or

“Plaintiff” and sues the Defendants, The Florida Bar (hereinafter “TFB”)

and Florida Supreme Court ( hereinafter “FSC”), Karen Bankowitz, Esq.,

Joshue Doyle, Esq., for relief, under the Due Process Clause, Equal

Protection Clause, Americans with Disability Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §

1983 , Ex Parte Young, First Amendment as applied to the State thru the

Fourteenth Amendment, Commerce Clause, Sherman Act as follows:

1. LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS has an interest in again practicing

law in Florida.

2. LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS is prevented from practicing law in

Florida because the SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ("SCF") is a

licensor which controls who may practice law and its arm, THE

FLORIDA BAR ("TFB"), controlled by market participants, prosecuted

her pursuant to rules promulgated by the SCF before the SCF (thus

an institutional bias) causing her to permanently retire. See Florida

Bar Rule 1.3-5(d)("A member who is approved to permanently retire is

not eligible for reinstatement or readmission."). See also ECF 46 p. 3.

3. The Florida Supreme Court is the highest state court in Florida.

Article V, Section 15 of the Florida Constitution states that it “shall

have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the

practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.” It disciplines

lawyers with its “official arm,” the defendant, The Florida Bar.

FACTS

1. Starting on December 31, 2020 until the time the Plaintiff filed her

petition for retirement on March 7, 2023, disciplinary

investigations remained opened against the Plaintiff with no

findings for over two years. Complainants included:

(a) Three (3) attorneys, who were direct market competitors

in guardianship/family and opposing counsel in Plaintiff’s

active cases

(b) One (1) Professional guardian, who was an adversarial

party in one of the Plaintiff’s guardianship cases and the

Plaintiff had sued directly while representing her client

(c) One (1) Former paralegal, who filed a bar complaint after

the Plaintiff terminated her services

(d) One (1) Former office assistant/ whom the Plaintiff also

represented in a case, who threatened the Plaintiff with a

bar complaint if she withdrew from her case

(e) One (1) Former client, who threatened the Plaintiff with a

bar complaint if Plaintiff withdrew from his case

(f) One (1) former client who had been recently terminated of

employment by the Plaintiff’s parents’ business.

(g) One (1) former client, who the Plaintiff was actively suing

for failure to pay for legal services

2. From December 31, 2020 until the date the Plaintiff filed her

Petition for Permanent Retirement, the lead prosecutor, KAREN

BANKOWITZ, ESQ., acting under the direction of The Florida Bar

and Individually, whom all parties are market competitors of the

Plaintiff, engaged in a series of actions that abused the powers

vested by the Florida Supreme Court under Chapter 3 Rules of

Discipline and coerced the Plaintiff into permanently retiring her

Florida license to practice law.

These include:

(a) On January 9, 2023, days before a scheduled trial in the case,

KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. took measures to send police to

Plaintiff’s home to have her Baker Acted, resulting in trauma to

the Plaintiff’s family

(b) KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. unreasonably held complaints

open against the Plaintiff for over two years, refusing to dismiss

complaints, that could not be substantiated with the intent to

leverage herself and coerce the Plaintiff into permanently

retiring and to cause harm to Plaintiff.

(c) KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. had knowledge with clear evidence

negating her claims in her formal complaints filed against the

Plaintiff, and refused to amend her formal complaints to reflect

such

(d) On February 8, 2023, after taking measures to Baker Act the

Plaintiff, KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ fought against the

Plaintiff’s request to continue her trial, contrary to the joinder

motions to support such a request, she regularly filed to support

other attorneys in similar circumstances.

(e) On February 8, 2023, KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. made false

statements to the Referee during a court proceeding that falsely

portrayed the Plaintiff.

(f) KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. allowed Complainants to publicly

circulate complaints containing false unfounded allegations

about the Plaintiff to the local community and legal community

throughout the open investigations.

(g) During the open investigation, KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. had

notice of the complainants circulating false unfounded

statements about her investigation and the Plaintiff on social

 media, the internet, and in court files, while naming The Florida

Bar and failed to take any actions to stop this or clear up the

false statements with knowledge it was harming the Plaintiff.

(h) KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. filed her own complaint against

the Plaintiff, days before pressuring the Plaintiff to retire, and

with knowledge the Plaintiff intended to refute her formal

complaints in court. In KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. complaint

filed against the Plaintiff, she failed to provide the Plaintiff with

any explanation of what the Plaintiff had violated and refused to

provides The Florida Bar with complete records, specifically

leaving out filings favorable to the Plaintiff.

(i) KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. submits the Plaintiff’s Petition for

Retirement for The Florida Supreme Court approval, while

failing to provide the Florida Supreme Court with complete

records that are favorable to the Plaintiff’s position and evidence

the Plaintiff’s retirement was in result of coercive tactics

implemented by KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ.

(j) KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. has a phone call with the Plaintiff

after the Plaintiff Petitions for her Retirement, apologizing and

 stating she was only taking orders from those in superior

positions with The Florida Bar in how she conducted her

investigation.

(k)TFB intake office forwarded all the complaints against the

Plaintiff to the Prosecutor, bypassing procedure as required

under Chapter 3 Rules of Discipline and depriving the Plaintiff

the opportunity to respond or rebut allegations prior to them

being sent to the local committees for further investigation.

(l) KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. alleged false statements in her

formal complaint against the Plaintiff with knowledge and

evidence the allegations were false and refused to correct these

pleading upon receiving contrary evidence to negate these

statements. These formal complaints continue to be public

records.

(m) The Florida Bar refused to acknowledge or provide the

Plaintiff with information and status of the complaints against

various members of The Florida Bar the Plaintiff had filed

against Florida Bar Members engaging in ethical violations.

 (n)The Florida Bar dismissed complaints filed by the Plaintiff

against opposing counsel in active case for ethical violations,

based on the cases still being active. Yet, pursued complaints

made by opposing attorneys against the Plaintiff’s active cases.

(o) The Florida Bar failed to allow the Plaintiff to provide evidence

that would support her position during the investigation.

(p) The Florida Bar took measures to encourage former clients of the

Plaintiff to pursue complaints against the Plaintiff when

speaking with them.

(q) KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. held a Bar complaint against

Plaintiff’s husband during her investigation of the Plaintiff that

did not meet the criteria of a violation and told him it would be

dropped if he would testify against the Plaintiff.

3. The Florida Bar has maintained both in their filing in this case and

in their own published literature the following:

(a) In The Florida Bar’s Motion to Dismiss specifically writes on

ECF 19, p. 7-8:

“Pursuant to RRTFB 3-7.3, TFB may investigate a

complaint or initiate an inquiry, or not. Further inquiry
into the motive behind the choice to investigate or bring
disciplinary proceedings (or not) is barred by absolute
 privilege, and certainly not inconsistent with any
established right..”

4. The Florida Bar is a self-regulated agency requiring mandatory

membership. This agency is solely made up of market competitors.

These market competitors exclusively handle the entire

disciplinary process up to the recommendations for discipline. This

is the only oversight the Florida Supreme Court has in this process.

Market competitors are not only attorneys but non-attorneys who

do business with attorneys.

5. The investigator in the Plaintiff’s case who made false facts in his

report about the Plaintiff, was found to simultaneously operate his

own private investigation company, servicing local attorneys, while

conducting investigations for the Florida Bar’s attorney discipline.

6. Both Karen Bankowitz, Esq. and her husband are local market

competitors to the Plaintiff.

7. The investigator and prosecutor lacked knowledge to determine

what the standard in the Plaintiff’s area of law was when they

alleged the Plaintiff did not properly fill out a family law related

filings and follow appropriate procedure. Instead relied on

statements made by opposing counsel in the Plaintiff’s active case

 to make their determinations without appropriate knowledge and

understanding.

8. The Florida Bar has taken measures to hide facts from the Florida

Supreme Court regarding the Plaintiff’s retirement.

These include:

(a) The Florida Bar failed to provide the Florida Supreme Court

with complete records of the Plaintiff’s petition for retirement at

the time the Florida Supreme Court approved the Plaintiff’s

retirement, evidencing the Plaintiff was coerced to Petition for

Retirement because of The Florida Bar’s unethical actions taken

during her investigation.

(b) One week after the Plaintiff put The Florida Bar on notice to the

false statements contained in their investigators report, that led

to a formal complaint filed against the Plaintiff, the investigator

was found to having retired after serving as an investigator of

The Florida Bar for almost 10 years.

(c) The Florida Bar Assistance Program Therapist who made it

known she supported the Plaintiff, was terminated of providing

 services immediately after The Florida Bar became aware of her

support for the Plaintiff’s position against The Florida Bar.

(d) The Florida Bar bypassed Chapter 3 Rules of Discipline during

the Plaintiff’s investigations

9. The Board of Governors of the Florida Bar failed to follow the

procedures of Chapter 3 Rules of Discipline when they received

voluminous emails and phone calls from the Plaintiff, requesting

their assistance and investigation into what was taking place and

failing to respond to any attempts made by the Plaintiff to request

their assistance in investigating what had been taking place.

10. The State of Florida is one of the few states who have

continued to refuse to implement the recommendations of the

ABA’s McKay Report that warned states of allowing market

participants to have too much control of attorney discipline.

11. Chapter 3 Rules of Discipline allow the entire investigatory

process, charging process, court procedures up to the determination

of appropriate discipline to be exclusively handles by market

competitors with no oversight by the Florida Supreme Court.

12. The same referee presides over the lawyer disciplinary cases.

The same referee was assigned to all of the Plaintiff’s cases.

13. Referee’s receive awards from the Florida Bar for their work

in attorney discipline.

14. The Florida Bar continues to keep their complaints with no

findings against the Plaintiff as public record, along with negative

records, withholding complete records that are favorable to the

Plaintiff.

15. The Plaintiff continues to be harmed by the following:

(a) Determined Indigent by the Florida Courts

(b) Unable to pay back her Federal Student loan debt for law school.

(c) Negative records with no findings have been used in two court

cases to make claims that the Plaintiff was an incompetent

attorney.

(d) Plaintiff cannot get hired for meaningful employment that would

allow her to pay back the large debt of her law school student

loans, while providing for her large family, with three (3) small

children
 (e) Plaintiff must disclose her records to outside states in her efforts

to gain a law license out of state, posing challenging for gaining

a law license

(f) Plaintiff has suffered emotional harm from the false portrayals

of her character that has been allowed to take place during the

investigation and remains in public records and on the internet.

(g) Plaintiff poses challenges on getting any type of state license

because of the public records portraying her in a negative light.

(h)Cannot obtain her license to practice law in Florida because of

her permanent retirement status.

COUNT I: KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ., IN HER PERSONAL

CAPACITY, ENGAGED IN VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF VIOLATING 28 USC SEC. 1983 FOR
VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION’S 14TH AMENDMENT
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-14

2. The Supreme Court established that vindictive prosecution is

impermissible and occurs when the prosecutor retaliates against the
defendant because the defendant has chosen to exercise a legal right.
Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27-29 (1974).This results in a denial
of due process, a defendant’s constitutional right to fair proceedings in
a court of law.
3. Defendant took measures that can be considered unconscionable
during the investigation of the Plaintiff, as pleaded.

4. This ultimately led to the Plaintiff feeling coerced to retire her license
to practice law, causing her damage.

5. The Plaintiff was retaliated against when the Defendant abused the
powers vested to her by The Florida Bar and The Florida Supreme
Court.

6. Wherefore, LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS, claims against the KAREN

BANKOWITZ, ESQ. violation 28 USC Sec. 1983 for violation of the
U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment Due Process Clause Process and
seeks appropriate relief as afforded to her.

COUNT II: KAREN BANKOWITZ, ESQ. ENGAGED IN SELECTIVE

PROSECUTION VIOLATING 28 USC SEC. 1983 OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION’S 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL
PROTECTION

7. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-14

8. 28 USC SEC. 1983 of the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment Right to

Equal Protection, affords the Plaintiff the same rights as other

attorney in the same circumstances.

9. However, it is clear the process of attorney discipline under Chapter 3

Rules of Discipline, allow the picking and choosing of who the market

competitors want to pursue complaints against.

10. This created a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a

discriminatory purpose, which is demonstrated by evidence of how

similar attorneys were treated drastically different from the Plaintiff

in similar circumstances.

11. A prosecutor’s discretion is subject to constitutional limitations that

district courts can enforce. Wade v. U.S., 504 U.S. 181, 185, 112 S.Ct.

1840, 1843 (1992). “The Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective

enforcement ‘based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race,

religion, or other arbitrary classification.’” U. S. v. Batchelder, 442

U.S. 114, 125, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2205 (1979) (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368

U.S. 448, 456, 82 S.Ct. 501, 506, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962)). Thus, the

Supreme Court has “long recognized that when an act violates more

than one criminal statute, the Government may prosecute under

either so long as it does not discriminate against any class of

defendants.” Batchelder, 442 U.S. at 123-124 (citing United States v.

Beacon Brass Co., 344 U.S. 43, 45-46, 73 S.Ct. 77, 79, 97 L.Ed. 61

(1952); Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 294, 73 S.Ct. 1152,

1163, 97 L.Ed. 1607 (1953) (Clark, J., concurring, joined by five

 Members of the Court); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456, 82 S.Ct. 501,

505, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962) (additional citations omitted)).

12. The Plaintiff was a sole practitioner, not belonging to a large firm.

She also was protected under the ADA for a disability.

13. The Plaintiff was unconstitutionally charged and investigated to

the point of harm.

14. Wherefore, LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS, claims against KAREN

BANKOWITZ, ESQ. for violation 28 USC Sec. 1983 for violation of the
U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment right to Equal Protection and
seeks appropriate relief as afforded and Karen Bankowitz, Esq. should
be held liable for these violations.

COUNT III JOSHUA DOYLE, ESQ., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

HELD THE PLAINTIFF TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD AND
TREATED HER DIFFERENTLY VIOLATING TITLE II OF
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

15. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-14

16. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to and

restrains states and state agencies from discrimination against

citizens on the basis of disabilities, real or falsely imputed.

17. JOSHUE DOYLE, ESQ. in his official capacity, engaged in the

actions deemed to violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities

Act.

18. The Plaintiff should be afforded protections under the ADA.

Attorney's has a “disability” under Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 201(2), 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 12131(2). The Fla. Bar v. Clement, 662 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1995), as

amended (Nov. 28, 1995). The ADA applies to the City because it is a

"public entity" as defined by title II. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).

19. Furthermore, the Plaintiff should not have to endure

discriminatory statements and differences in treatment compared to

other practicing attorneys in similar circumstances. Defendant(s)

have always had full knowledge of the Plaintiff’s disability for the

alleged facts in this complaint.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for the violation of

Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act, and JOSHUA DOYLE, ESQ.

in his official capacity should be held liable for injunctive relief and all

other remedies necessary and just as afforded.

COUNT IV: CLAIM AGAINST KAREN CLARK BANKOWITZ, IN HER
PERSONAL CAPACITY PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FOR
COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND ANY OTHER
JUST RELIEF

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-14

20. KAREN CLARK BANKOWITZ prosecuted Plaintiff before the

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA for alleged violations of the Rules

of Professional Conduct promulgated by the SUPREME COURT OF

FLORIDA (which creates an institutional bias) in what Plaintiff said

or failed to say with relation to Plaintiff's representation of (1) C.R. In

case SC2022-1749 and (2) Barbara Gouldboum a/k/a Barbara

Schuchard and the father in a paternity issue in case 29-2016-DR-

9265 and a husband in case 35-2021-DR-817 in Case SC2022-1353.

21. At no time was KAREN CLARK BANKOWITZ an attorney for any

of the above persons who Ms. Ferderigos had represented.

22. KAREN CLARK BANKOWITZ did not file a legal malpractice

action on behalf of any of the above persons who Ms. Ferderigos had

represented.
23. In a legal malpractice action LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS would

have had the protection of the rules of evidence (such as non-admission

of hearsay applicable in an action for legal malpractice) and the

restriction would have been on conduct, not speech.

24. KAREN CLARK BANKOWITZ thereby caused LESLIE ANN

FERDERIGOS damage unduly burdening LESLIE ANN

FERDERIGOS enjoyment of her rights under the First Amendment,

by causing the loss of income and by damage to her reputation.

25. Wherefore LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS sues KAREN CLARK

BANKOWITZ n her persoanl capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for compensatory and punitive damages and any other just relief.

COUNT V: CLAIM AGAINST JOSHUE E. DOYLE, IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA BAR
PURSUANT TO “EX PARTE YOUNG” FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF
NEGATIVE RECORDS AND OTHER PROPER INJUNTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-14

26. JOSHUA E. DOYLE is the Executive Director of TFB.

27. JOSHUA E. DOYLE has negative records resulting from KAREN

CLARK BANKOWITZ unlawful behavior against LESLIE ANN

FERDERIGOS.
28. Wherefore LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS sues JOSHUA E. DOYLE,

in his official capacity, is the Executive Director of TFB pursuant to

"Ex Parte Young" for expungement of negative records and other

proper injunctive relief.

CLAIM VI: CLAIM AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

AS THE RULEMAKING BODY FOR THE FLORIDA BAR
CHALLENGING BAR RULE 1.3-5 AS VIOLATIVE OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION'S FREE SPEECH, ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
GUARANTEES OF THE US. CONSTITUTION'S FIRST AMENDMENT
AS APPLIED TO THE STATES VIA THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-14

29. The SCF is the rulemaking body for The Florida Bar.

30. The SCF enacted Bar Rule 1.3-5.

31. Bar Rule 1.3-5 violates the U.S. Constitution's free speech,

assembly and petition guarantees as applicable to the States via the

Fourteenth Amendment because it restricts expressive speech of

lawyering directly or via its incidental effect from the regulation of

conduct. See 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, No. 21–476 (June 30,

2023)(Court rejected Dissent's defense of anti-discrimination against

gay persons law as to the First Amendment rights of an intended

 wedding web designer because even if the effect on expressive speech

is incidental and there is an asserted compelling purpose for the anti-

discrimination law, the First Amendment takes precedence).

32. If this Court declares Bar Rule 1.3-5 violative of the First

Amendment, then Plaintiff will be eligible for reinstatement or

readmission.

33. Wherefore LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS claims against SCF that

its enacted Bar Rule 1.3-5 violates the First Amendment.

CLAIM VII: : CLAIM AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

AS THE LICENSOR OF LAWYERS THAT THE LAWYER LICENSING
SCHEME IS VIOLATIVE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION'S FREE
SPEECH, ASSEMBLY AND PETITION GUARANTEES OF THE US.
CONSTITUTION'S FIRST AMENDMENT AS APPLIED TO THE
STATES VIA THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-14

34. The Supreme Court of Florida ("SCF") is the licensor of lawyers.

35. The SCF enacted rules of admission to the Florida Bar and uses an

asserted inherent discretion on deciding who to permit to practice law.

36. The rules of admission to TFB and the asserted inherent discretion

on deciding who to permit to practice law violates the U.S.

 Constitution's free speech, assembly and petition guarantees as

applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment because it

restricts expressive speech of lawyering directly or via its incidental

effect from the regulation of conduct. See 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis,

No. 21–476 (June 30, 2023)(Court rejected Dissent's defense of anti-

discrimination against gay persons law as to the First Amendment

rights of an intended wedding web designer because even if the effect

on expressive speech is incidental and there is an asserted compelling

purpose for the anti-discrimination law, the First Amendment takes

precedence).

37. If this Court declares the rules of admission to TFB and the

asserted inherent discretion on deciding who to permit to practice law

as violative of the First Amendment, then Plaintiff will be eligible to

practice law in Florida.

38. Wherefore LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS claims against SCF that

the lawyer licensing scheme violates the First Amendment and seeks

declaratory relief.

CLAIM VIII: CLAIM AGAINST THE FLORIDA BAR FOR VIOLATION

OF THE SHERMAN ACT
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-14

39. TFB is run by market participants and is not actually supervised

by the SCF in the Bar’s prosecutorial decisions.

40. TFB is not immune from the Sherman Act despite its relationship

to the SCF because the Sherman Act prohibits a State from assisting

another’s violation of the Sherman Act. See California Retail Liquor

Dealers Assoc. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 US 97, 106 (1980)(“a

state does not give immunity to those who violate the Sherman Act by

authorizing them to violate it, or by declaring that their action is

lawful…” (quoting Parker, 317 US at 351).“

41. TFB lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity because the Sherman

Act was enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause and as part of the

plan of the convention the States structurally waived the right to

assert sovereign immunity to claims made pursuant to the Commerce

Clause. See Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety, 142 S. Ct. 2455,

2485 (2022)(Dissent commenting that the majority apparently has

limited Seminole and revived Parden's theory of plan-of-the-

Convention waiver).
42. LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS is suffering damages by being unable

to practice law in Florida as a result of TFB;s violation of the Sherman

Act.

43. Wherefore LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS sues TFB pursuant to the

Sherman Act and seeks treble damages and such other relief as this

Court deems proper.

CLAIM VIIII: CLAIM AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

FOR VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-14

44. SCF's lawyer licensing is intended to benefit Floridians and to

detriment non-Floridians.

45. The preference is indicated by the SCF's authorizing TFB to have

the discretion to make disciplinary charging decisions without actual

supervision by the SCF and/or any non-market participants.

46. SCF's need to license who may practice law in Florida is not

important because market forces and general civil and criminal laws

as well as the current high level of communications, information and

transportation can adequately regulate the market for legal services.

47. Furthermore, the SCF can publish on its website information about

the educational background and/or relevant history of any market

participants.

48. Since SCF is an entity there are no personal immunities applicable.

49. There is a traditional presumption in favor of an appropriate relief

for violation of a federal law.

50. Wherefore LESLIE ANN FERDERIGOS sues the SCF for violation

of the Commerce Cause and seeks appropriate relief.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
I hereby certify that on September 4, 2023 a copy hereof was mailed (or
emailed with consent for that form of service) to Kevin Cox, Holland &
Knight LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida
32301, Veronica Burianek, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Litigation
Central, Office of the Attorney General, 3507 E. Frontage Road, Suite
150 I Tampa, FL 33607 and Erwin Rosenberg, 100 West Island Blvd.
1011, Aventura, Florida 33160.

Respectfully Submitted,

s// ____________
Leslie Ferderigos
10454 Birch Tree Ln
Windermere, FL 34786-8013
Tel 407-919-3939
10454 Birch Tree Ln
Windermere, FL 34786-8013
[email protected]