In a world where legal systems are often perceived as complex and slow, the case of Jacksonville attorney Kenneth Clark Steel III serves as a stark reminder of the serious consequences that can arise from even a seemingly simple misstep. The Florida Bar recently disciplined Steel for failing to diligently and competently represent a client in a personal injury case. This decision underscores the crucial importance of a lawyer’s attention to detail and adherence to the fundamental principles of their profession.
The case, The Florida Bar v. Kenneth Clark Steel, III, with case No. 2023-00164(4D)
This case originated from a formal complaint filed in November 2024. The complaint detailed how Sandra J. Frank hired Steel in July 2017 after she suffered a slip and fall in Valdosta, Georgia. The key issue? Georgia’s two-year statute of limitations for such a case, a detail that was apparently overlooked.
The complaint outlines that on July 29, 2017, Sandra J. Frank engaged Steel to represent her after she sustained significant injuries from the accident, which required multiple surgical interventions. Despite repeated requests from Frank and her husband for updates on the case, including a copy of the demand letter, Steel delayed communication and indicated that he needed to understand the full extent of her injuries before proceeding.
In March 2020, Steel assured Frank that there were no concerns regarding the statute of limitations. However, by April 9, 2020, Cannon Cochran Management Services, the insurer, informed Steel that the case was closed due to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations in Georgia.
Subsequently, Steel filed a lawsuit on July 29, 2020, in Duval County, Florida, against Drury Hotels, Inc. The case was later removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where it faced a Motion to Dismiss from Drury’s counsel, arguing that the lawsuit was barred by Georgia’s statute of limitations. On August 16, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Brian J. Davis granted the motion, emphasizing that the case was filed beyond the allowable time frame.
Steel attempted to appeal the decision, but the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on September 2, 2022. In his response to the Florida Bar’s initial complaint, Steel acknowledged that he incorrectly applied Florida’s four-year statute of limitations rather than the two-year statute applicable under Georgia law.
The Florida Bar has requested disciplinary action against Steel for violations of several professional conduct rules, including those about competence and diligence. The complaint was officially filed with the Supreme Court of Florida, which will determine the appropriate disciplinary measures.
The complaint states:
“The Florida Bar respectfully requests that this Court appropriately discipline the respondent under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.”
Ultimately, a consent judgment was approved in May 2025. The judgment publicly reprimanded Steel, required him to attend Ethics School, and ordered him to pay over $1,300 in costs to The Florida Bar. While some might view this as a light penalty, the public reprimand itself is a significant mark on an attorney’s professional record. It serves as a public declaration that their conduct fell short of the standards expected by the legal community and, most importantly, the public they serve.
This case should serve as a cautionary tale for all legal professionals. In an increasingly interconnected world, where clients and incidents can cross state lines with ease, a lawyer’s responsibility to understand and apply the correct laws is more important than ever. The old adage, “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” applies just as much to legal professionals as it does to the general public.
The disciplinary action against Kenneth Clark Steel III is not about punishing an individual; it’s about upholding the integrity of the legal profession. A client’s trust is paramount, and when a lawyer’s oversight, no matter how unintentional, leads to the loss of a client’s legal rights, that trust is shattered. The consequences for Sandra J. Frank the potential loss of her ability to seek justice for her injuries—are far more significant than any professional reprimand. The system of public discipline, while not perfect, is a necessary mechanism for accountability. It sends a clear message that competence and diligence are not optional, but rather the very foundation of legal practice. It reminds us all that the law, in all its complexity, demands our constant, unwavering attention to detail.
Want more legal ethics breakdown like this?
Subscribe to our blog or follow us for weekly case summaries, rules analyses, and disciplinary updates