FLORIDA BAR v. KOZOLCHYK (2025)

Mr. Kozolchyk, you are here today to receive a public reprimand because you violated Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. You were found in violation of Rules 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions, A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein); 4-3.2 (A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expediate litigation consistent with the interests of the client); and 4-3.3 (Candor Towards the Tribunal); 4-4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others); and 4-4.4 (Respect for the Rights of Third Persons).

By order of the Supreme Court of Florida dated July 10, 2025, you were found to have engaged in professional misconduct when:

In 2019, two federal judges referred you to the Ad Hoc Committee for conduct encompassing several cases. The central concern was that your litigation strategies appeared to be driven by your desire to collect attorney's fees rather than a concern for your clients. The Committee reviewed misrepresentations you made to the court, delayed litigation tactics meant to increase your own fees, and material misrepresentations made to opposing counsel.

On May 22, 2019, Judge Middlebrooks held calendar call in Shuman v. Treatment Partners of America, in which you represented plaintiff, Felicia Shuman (“Shuman”). Shuman claimed that, pursuant to the FLSA, defendants Treatment Partners of America LLC and Scott Frankel owed her $522.00 in unpaid minimum wages, $122.00 in unpaid overtime wages, and $644.00 in liquidated damages, amounting to a total of $1,288.00 in damages. Approximately two weeks after the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff received a payroll check for $1,075.12 from defendant Treatment Partners of America LLC.

Three months after Shuman received her payroll check, you filed a motion in limine. At calendar call you sought fees for the filing of said motion which was an unnecessary filing. Moreover at calendar call there was a dispute as to whether there was a settlement between the parties. The parties were not litigating Shuman's entitlement to liquidated damages or the precise terms of a general release; instead, the only dispute remaining between the parties at the calendar call was whether they had reached a settlement agreement for Shuman's remaining claims for attorney's fees and costs. The parties agreed that the defendants would pay you $2,500.00 for Shuman's claims for fees and costs in exchange for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. While the defendants believed that this exchange constituted a settlement agreement subject to judicial review, you represented to the Court that the agreement did not constitute a settlement agreement. You insisted that the exchange of fees for dismissal did not constitute a settlement agreement because the dismissal of Shuman's claims was without prejudice. As the Court stated on the record at the calendar call, your argument—that the exchange of money for dismissal did not constitute a settlement agreement—was both disingenuous and a means for the parties to evade judicial review of the settlement agreement. You argued that the money paid to Shuman immediately after the Complaint was filed, and the $2,500.00 paid to you to dismiss the lawsuit, were completely unrelated to one another.

You further argued that, because the dismissal was without prejudice, Shuman relinquished none of her legal rights; thus, the agreement fell outside the ambit of the Eleventh Circuit's mandate that district courts must review compromises under the FLSA for fairness. The Court disagreed and stated that your arguments were nonsensical and a violation of your duty of candor towards the Court. For you to argue repeatedly before the Court that such an exchange did not constitute a settlement agreement was disingenuous and self-serving.

Additionally, your misconduct in front of Judge Rosenberg mirrors Judge Middlebrooks’ experiences. Judge Rosenberg also was concerned that your cases did not resolve or settle until you generated a significant amount of fees and costs.

An example is Soto v. Audiology Distribution LLC, In Soto, the defendant delivered settlement checks to you for the full amount sought. The parties agreed to settlement terms as the terms applied to your client. Rather than deliver the settlement checks to your client, you took the position that there was no settlement agreement between the parties because the defendant refused to agree that it would not seek sanctions against you personally. Because the parties could not resolve the possibility of sanctions against you personally, you refused to concede that there was a settlement agreement as to your client, which put the case into a state of limbo and delayed justice for your client.

Your behavior in other regards was also violative of the Rules. Your behavior and communications towards opposing counsel have been problematic. In fact, your conduct was so serious at one point that Magistrate Judge Brannon sanctioned you and required you to serve at a local soup kitchen.

Mr. Kozolchyk, you come here today pursuant to an Order of the Supreme Court of Florida, entered on July 10, 2025, that approved the Consent Judgement, and directed that you receive a public reprimand to be administered by the Referee.

Lawyers are officers of the court and are sworn to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. When attorneys engage in misconduct it casts doubt over the fair and impartial administration of justice. By engaging in this misconduct, you not only blemished your own reputation, but you have tainted the reputation of the profession as a whole. Actions such as yours reduce respect for the legal profession and diminish the effectiveness of our system of justice.

This Public Reprimand is now part of your permanent Florida Bar disciplinary record. You are further advised that while this Public Reprimand does not affect your privilege of practicing law, future misconduct will. The lawyers of Florida expect your future conduct be in compliance with your oath and you should demand the same of yourself.

M. Katherine Mullinax, Referee