An ex-lawyer who was disbarred after the Florida Supreme Court found his faulty legal advice on marijuana “devastated” the lives of several clients is getting no sympathy from those who used to be his colleagues.

The high court Thursday disbarred Ian James Christensen for “incompetence and extremely serious harm to clients,” who were arrested and prosecuted after they followed his advice and thought they'd gain the right to use medical marijuana in Florida. Christensen then attempted to represent two of these clients in the criminal proceedings, but prosecutors had him disqualified, or thrown off the case, for conflict of interest. He then refused to refund the attorney fees he'd charged, even after the trial court ordered him to do so.

“Even lawyers who represent lawyers are shedding no tears for this guy,” said Florida Bar ethics committee member Andrew S. Berman, senior partner at Young Berman Karpf & Gonzalez in Miami. “This is a case of a young lawyer having no idea what he is doing and causing tremendous harm to clients, who went to him looking for legal advice and had their careers destroyed as a result of his bad advice.”

Christensen founded IJC Law Group in Jacksonville less than three months after his admission to the Florida Bar in 2013 and began offering legal services and advice to clients. At the time, he had no training on the legal issues surrounding medical marijuana, according to the Florida Supreme Court decision issued Jan. 18. Within six months, he formed Health Law Services, and five months after that, incorporated the Cannabinoid Therapy Institute. He listed IJC Law Group as the Cannabinoid Therapy Institute's registered agent, while “nonlawyer Christopher Ralph—a self-professed expert in the medical marijuana industry—represented himself as CTI's director,” legal administrator and consultant, according to the high court ruling.

The referee handling Christensen's disciplinary proceedings found the attorney charged clients $799 for a doctor's visit through his Cannabinoid Therapy Institute. If the clinic's doctor found a medical necessity for the client to use marijuana, Christensen's other company, Health Law Services, then provided an “Official Legal Certification” and patient identification card, indicating the client had received a marijuana prescription, according to the Supreme Court ruling.

That certificate was supposed to give Christensen's clients an affirmative defense and inform police of their right to use, possess and grow cannabis based on medical necessity.

“Respondent did not tell his clients that this affirmative defense would not apply, if at all, until after the clients were arrested, charged and prosecuted,” the justices wrote in the unsigned opinion.

Two clients posted a “grow sign” from Christensen's business in front of a home to notify officials that medical marijuana cultivation was underway. The sign offered no protection and instead appeared to have triggered criminal proceedings after police appeared on the client's doorstep following a 911 call. The clients called Christensen, who said “they had nothing to worry about and that he or someone from his office would contact law enforcement to discuss the situation,” the ruling states.

A dramatic raid followed and a “fully armed SWAT team” swarmed the property, arrested the clients and leveled several felony charges. Law enforcement agents seized the home, valuables and vehicles, prompting Christensen to file a complaint with Internal Affairs for damage caused during the raid. In the end, the clients hired a new attorney and accepted plea deals to serve three years' probation, pay a $15,000 fine and serve 100 hours of community service, according to the court documents. One lost a nursing license she'd held for 25 years, while the other lost his 15-year engineering job.

“I was not surprised that he was disbarred,” said Bast Amron special counsel Brian Tannebaum, a Miami ethics lawyer who represents attorneys in disciplinary and bar admission cases. “He engaged in a course of conduct that was a complete fraud basically before the ink was dry on his law license.”

More bad news for Christensen's clients: The referee found the lawyer had referred three clients to a doctor who was not licensed to practice medicine in Florida.

“During the criminal proceedings pertaining to the clients and during the proceedings in this disciplinary matter, respondent continued to insist on the correctness of his clearly erroneous legal positions, until he was ordered to show cause to this court why he should not be disbarred,” the justices wrote. “We will not tolerate such misconduct by members of the Florida Bar.”

The referee recommended a two-year suspension. But the high court, which has the final word on attorney discipline, opted for a more severe sanction and disbarred Christensen.

Christensen wound down his law practice in November 2015, according to court records. His attorney, D. Gray Thomas of the Law Office of D. Gray Thomas in Jacksonville, said Christensen acted in good faith.

“A young lawyer thought at the time that he was serving his clients' rights and best interests and was advising them appropriately,” Thomas said. “He thought he was raising a valid position on their behalf, supported by existing Florida legal precedent on the defense of medical necessity. Mr. Christensen never meant harm to any client.”

Ethics lawyers say the case points to potential pitfalls in a still-emerging practice area involving marijuana use.

“Lawyers need to understand that marijuana is illegal under federal law. To ignore that because it may be legal under state law, is beyond dangerous, it's unethical,” Tannebaum said. “Lawyers can advise of the consequences of engaging in the legal marijuana industry, but if they assist a client in what the feds believe is criminal conduct, especially under this administration, they shouldn't be surprised to be on the other end of a search of their office and possibly an indictment.”

Berman also advised caution in legal advice around the use of medical marijuana.

“The marijuana industry itself could be tricky and dangerous because of the conflict in federal and state law,” he said. “It is tricky and dangerous—All the more reason to know what you're doing before you start giving reckless advice.”