Embattled Fort Lauderdale attorney Stephen Rakusin will keep his law license following a ruling from the Florida Supreme Court that found the Florida Bar filed its complaint outside the six-year statute-of-limitations window.

Rakusin was accused of filing a frivolous lawsuit based on false claims by former Broward Circuit Judge Laura Watson. The ex-judge had sued Miami law firm Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi over comments it had made to the Daily Business Review about an earlier case, in which Watson was the defendant.

Rakusin faced an ethics case over his work in that litigation. But his case raised questions about when complainants should reasonably be expected to file grievances.

|

Related story: Florida Lawyers Spar Over Fate of Judge Watson's Attorney, Who Faces Disbarment

After oral arguments, the high court sided with Rakusin's attorney, Kevin Tynan of Richardson & Tynan in Tamarac, who pointed to a Florida Bar rule that says complainants should make allegations of misconduct "within six years from the time the matter giving rise to the inquiry or complaint is discovered, or with due diligence, should have been discovered."

Rakusin filed the pleading for Watson in May 2009, but the grievance complaint wasn't filed until seven years later in 2016.

Florida Bar counsel and Sunrise attorney Linda Gonzalez argued the clock didn't start until 2014, when Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko found Watson's complaint was a sham pleading. Butchko awarded the defense $84,500 in attorney fees, of which Rakusin shouldered $42,250.

Watson was removed from the bench in 2015 over ethics complaints, and permanently disbarred in 2017 for her role in negotiating an undisclosed settlement during her time as an insurance litigator at Watson & Lenter.

The state court's ruling comes despite a court-appointed referee's recommendation that Rakusin be disbarred for filing Watson's lawsuit in bad faith.

The Florida Supreme Court suggested the bar missed a chance to pursue its claim against Rakusin under a continuing-violation theory, which can override the statute of limitations when there is recurring misconduct.

"Although references were made in the briefs, and at oral argument, indicating that the bar at one time pursued a similar disciplinary proceeding against respondent based upon its independent investigation, which may have been timely under a different provision of Rule 3-7.16(a), it is clear that the formal complaint in this case is governed by the limitations period quoted above," the ruling said.

The bar declined to comment on the case, but told the court at oral arguments that "the aggravating circumstances and misconduct found in this case are outrageous."

Though Rakusin accepted that Watson's allegations were found to be false, he denied acting in bad faith. His attorney, Tynan, said they were pleased with the ruling.

"We're thankful that the Supreme Court enforced their own rule, which was the statute of limitations. Rules have to mean something, and we're glad they gave it meaning," Tynan said.

Tynan said it hasn't been easy for his client to deal with the discipline case.

"For anyone, it's difficult, especially when there was a disbarment recommendation. It affects their practice, their ability to earn an income," Tynan said. "And quite frankly, even though he has prevailed in this case, it's still going to affect his ability to practice law."

This wasn't Rakusin's first brush with the bar since being admitted in 1974. He was reprimanded in 2010 for failing to supervise a resigned attorney and failing to file quarterly reports after hiring that lawyer. He was also suspended for 90 days in 2016 over a string of allegations, including failing to abide by a client's decision, making a frivolous discovery request and failing to supervise other attorneys at his firm.

Read more: