Florida Court Suspends Klayman, Complicating Loomer HBO Suit (1)

Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch, has been suspended for two years by the Florida Supreme Court for violating conflict rules, including by representing clients opposed to his former organization.

Justices in a Thursday ruling unanimously approved the punishment and gave him 30 days to wrap up his Florida practice. Klayman said the court made the wrong call and he’s seeking reconsideration.

“I will be moving for a rehearing en banc to obtain a reasoned decision based on the actual record and if necessary file for a petition for writ of certiorari and/or writ of mandamus before the US Supreme Court, based on a denial of constitutional rights,” Klayman said in an email.

The ruling complicates Klayman’s ability to go forward with a high-profile case in which he represents conservative activist Laura Loomer. He resides in Florida and represents Loomer in her defamation suit against HBO and comedian Bill Maher in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The court penalized Klayman for the same ethics breaches he was sanctioned for in Washington, DC. There, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in September suspended him from practicing law in DC for 18 months.

The issues underlying the DC sanction date back to the early 2000s when he represented clients opposed to Judicial Watch, and then for his representation of a woman in a sexual harassment matter involving the Voice of America.

The Florida Bar took notice of the DC suspension and filed a complaint against Klayman in that state. Florida’s high court found that in addition to representing clients opposed to his former organization, Klayman failed to abide by rules governing client communication in the Voice of America matter.

The record supporting the DC order showed Klayman in his representation of the woman in the sexual harassment case “continued to act on her behalf and did not withdraw from representation after she tried to terminate his services,” the Florida court said. The justices also found “that he wrote and published articles revealing confidential information about her case even after she terminated representation and stopped contacting him.”

Alleged Bias

In briefs Klayman argued that the Washington disciplinary proceedings failed to establish proof of guilt, that those disciplinary authorities were biased against him due to his work on behalf of conservative causes, and that the alleged ethics breeches happened too long ago for Florida to sanction him.

The Florida disciplinary matter process also had flaws, according to Klayman, including a referee who should have been disqualified for prejudicial remarks made against him. The Florida justices didn’t consider that, or cite to the record, in their ruling.

“It is no longer in doubt the District of Columbia disciplinary apparatus has become weaponized against conservative and Republican activist lawyers who support President Trump and the wholly deficient and unsupported cursory findings of the Florida Supreme Court, which relies on what occurred in the District of Columbia, is the unfortunate and unjust result of this,” Klayman said.

Klayman’s lawyer, Robert Klein, a partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP said in an email that he was “profoundly disappointed by the decision.” Klein said that the justices had ample grounds to disregard the DC sanction, including that claims were brought against Klayman in Florida more than a decade ago and were dismissed.

The case is The Florida Bar v. Klayman, Fla., No. SC2023-1219, suspension ordered 11/6/25.