Nadia Mary Metroka v. The Florida Bar

This case does not ask the Court to revisit disputed facts or second-guess a state disciplinary authority’s credibility determinations. Instead, it presents a structural constitutional question concerning whether professional discipline may rest on findings that never satisfy the constitutionally required elements of misconduct. Although the decision below is framed as a fact-bound disciplinary proceeding, liability was imposed through procedural default and sustained through character-based reasoning rather than specific findings regarding intent, falsity, or constitutionally unprotected speech. The question presented therefore extends beyond petitioner and makes this case a matter of great public importance: 1. Whether constitutional due process allows professional discipline to be imposed where the tribunal failed to make the findings required by this Court’s precedents before punishment may lawfully issue.