Elisha D. Roy

Elisha D. Roy reviewed my formal objection under Florida Bar Policy 15 and issued a written decision affirming closure of my complaint against prior counsel. In her letter, she states that she reviewed the entire file and all supplemental materials I submitted, and concluded that both Bar Counsel’s o...riginal closure and the Director of Intake’s affirmation were “proper and correct.” My complaint was not a fee dispute or dissatisfaction with a case result. It involved documented procedural misconduct, including the filing of an “emergency” motion that expressly stated it was not an emergency, withdrawal instructions directing service outside of the Clerk’s case management system, the absence of any registered e-service designation, returned mail, and written admissions from Clerk Court Operations that my contact information was not in the system at the relevant time. The Clerk’s Inspector General further confirmed that no audit trail or system logs exist to verify service implementation. The IG specifically advised that these matters must be addressed through court or other agencies. Despite these written findings and record evidence, Ms. Roy concluded that no disciplinary investigation was warranted. The decision did not meaningfully address the emergency withdrawal language, the lack of CMS registration, the absence of audit logs, or the unilateral dropping of a count without client knowledge. Instead, the file was closed as “proper.” When an oversight body reviews admissions from court administration, Inspector General findings of no records, and documented procedural irregularities yet determines that everything was “proper,” it raises serious concerns about the depth and independence of the review process. In my experience, the review felt conclusory rather than analytical. Individuals relying on the grievance process to meaningfully evaluate documented procedural misconduct should understand how this matter was handled.