John Arthur Leklem, an Orlando litigation attorney who has been licensed to practice law in Florida since 1976, was suspended for 90 days by the Florida Supreme Court following a November 14, 2025 contempt order. The suspension, effective 30 days from the order date, arose not from new misconduct but from Leklem’s persistent failure to comply with the specific conditions the court had attached to a prior 30-day suspension — including completing a required office procedures and record-keeping review and paying the associated $2,000 fee.
The Florida Bar filed a petition for contempt and order to show cause against Leklem on August 28, 2025, stemming from his alleged noncompliance with a prior court order issued on May 9, 2024. Florida Politics
For the full list of attorneys disciplined in this cycle, see the Florida Bar’s January 1, 2026 Disciplinary Actions.
Background: The Original Client Complaint
Leklem’s disciplinary history with the Florida Bar traces back to a client matter that began in 2021. As previously reported by ALABnews, the Florida Bar filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of Florida against Leklem on October 16, 2023, for allegedly failing to provide competent and diligent representation to clients Jose Rosario-Lozano and his wife Priscilla Rivera Miranda in a condominium association election dispute. UniCourt
Leklem was hired on July 16, 2021, to file a petition for mandatory non-binding arbitration with the state Department of Business and Professional Regulation by the July 26 deadline. Rosario-Lozano paid Leklem a $3,000 fee. However, Leklem did not file the petition by the deadline — he submitted it on July 24 via two-day express mail, and it was not received by the department until July 28, well past the deadline. It was dismissed on August 4 for being untimely. UniCourt
After being hired, Leklem failed to adequately communicate with Rosario-Lozano about the status of the case. Rosario-Lozano learned of the dismissal from the department directly on November 18, 2021, after repeatedly trying to contact Leklem. Leklem also declined to refund any portion of the $3,000 fee. UniCourt
The full details of that original complaint were covered by ALABnews: Florida Bar Alleges Inadequate Representation in Complaint Against Attorney John Arthur Leklem (November 14, 2023).
The case resolved with a 30-day suspension under Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rules 4-1.1 (Competence), 4-1.3 (Diligence), and 4-1.4 (Communication).
The May 9, 2024 Suspension Order and Its Conditions
On May 9, 2024, the Florida Supreme Court entered an order in Case No. SC2023-1418 suspending Leklem from the practice of law for 30 days, effective June 10, 2024, based on the underlying client neglect matter.
Critically, the suspension order did not simply remove Leklem from practice for 30 days and send him on his way. It attached specific remedial conditions that Leklem was required to complete as part of his sanction:
— Attend a Trust Accounting Workshop administered by The Florida Bar; — Schedule and complete an office procedures and record-keeping analysis under the direction of the Discipline/Diversion Consultation Service (DDCS) of The Florida Bar within 30 days of the order; — Pay the $2,000 DDCS review fee.
The DDCS review is a structured, supervised assessment of a law firm’s office management practices — how client files are maintained, how communications are documented, how trust accounts are handled, and whether systems are in place to prevent the kind of neglect that gave rise to the original complaint. It is a forward-looking remedial tool designed to reduce the risk of future violations. It is not optional.
A Year and a Half of Noncompliance
The Florida Bar asserts that it notified Leklem multiple times regarding the conditions of his suspension and his subsequent noncompliance. The Bar initially notified Leklem on May 21, 2024, about the requirements to attend a Trust Accounting Workshop and schedule a DDCS review. A follow-up notification was sent on June 24, 2024, regarding his failure to initiate the DDCS review. Martindale
Further notifications were issued on October 10, 2024, and May 21, 2025, regarding Leklem’s continued failure to complete the questionnaire associated with law firm practice management, complete the required DDCS review, and pay the review fee. A final notification was sent on June 6, 2025, advising Leklem to remit the outstanding DDCS review fee within 10 days. Martindale
Despite five separate notifications over the course of more than a year, Leklem took no action. The Florida Bar contended that Leklem had not completed the required DDCS review or paid the $2,000.00 fee, and that it was therefore obligated to file the Petition for Contempt for noncompliance with the Court’s order. The Bar argued that failure to comply with court orders warrants enhanced discipline and that the costs of noncompliance should not be borne by other members of the bar. Martindale
The contempt petition and its background were reported by ALABnews: Florida Attorney John Arthur Leklem May Face Suspension for Alleged Noncompliance (September 9, 2025).
The Contempt Order and 90-Day Suspension
On November 14, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court granted the Bar’s petition and held Leklem in contempt of its May 9, 2024 order. The court imposed a 90-day suspension, effective 30 days from the order date — placing the suspension start date at approximately December 14, 2025.
The Bar’s petition had requested the court issue an order directing Leklem to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and suspended for 91 days, comply with the terms of the May 9, 2024 order in SC2023-1418 prior to petitioning for reinstatement, and pay administrative costs of $1,250.00. Martindale
The court’s final order imposed a 90-day suspension — just one day short of the 91-day threshold that would trigger the more demanding reinstatement process under Florida Bar rules — along with costs and the requirement that Leklem complete all outstanding conditions of the original suspension order before he may petition for reinstatement.
The suspension was confirmed in the Florida Bar’s January 1, 2026 disciplinary report, which covered court orders issued between October 11 and December 30, 2025.
What the DDCS Review Is and Why It Matters
The Discipline/Diversion Consultation Service is a program administered by The Florida Bar’s Lawyer Regulation Division designed to help attorneys identify and correct systemic weaknesses in their practice management before those weaknesses produce further client harm. Courts frequently attach DDCS review requirements to suspension orders in cases involving neglect, communication failures, and disorganized practice management — precisely the pattern present in Leklem’s original client matter.
When an attorney refuses to complete the DDCS review, they are not merely failing to check a box. They are signaling that they have taken no steps to understand or correct the conditions that led to their original discipline. That refusal, left unaddressed, leaves the public at risk.
Members of the public who have concerns about an attorney’s conduct may file a complaint through the Florida Bar’s Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) at 1-866-352-0707.
Reinstatement
Because the Florida Supreme Court imposed a 90-day suspension rather than a 91-day suspension, Leklem technically falls just below the threshold that would require him to undergo the full formal reinstatement process under Florida Bar rules. However, the court expressly conditioned his ability to petition for reinstatement on completing all outstanding obligations from the original May 9, 2024 order — including the DDCS review and the $2,000 fee — before he may return to practice.
Attorneys subject to suspensions of 91 days or more must follow the reinstatement process outlined in the Florida Bar Reinstatement Manual (August 2025).
The Broader Pattern in the January 2026 Disciplinary Cycle
John Arthur Leklem is one of several attorneys in the Florida Bar’s January 1, 2026 disciplinary cycle whose discipline escalated beyond the original sanction because of failure to comply with court-ordered conditions.
As this publication previously reported, Lisa Jacobs of Aventura was disbarred in the same cycle after three contempt proceedings for failing to file the Rule 3-5.1(h) notification affidavit following her original suspension. Aram Caldarera Bloom of Miami received a three-year suspension for the same failure. Joseph Anthony Gasparro of Jacksonville received an indefinite suspension for willful failure to respond to Bar investigations. And Robert Michael Fojo was disbarred after intentional misappropriation of client funds across three matters.
Taken together, these cases reflect a consistent message from the Florida Supreme Court and The Florida Bar: when attorneys treat court-ordered conditions as optional, they should expect escalating consequences. For a comprehensive overview of how the Florida disciplinary system works from complaint through final sanction, see LegalClarity’s guide to Florida Attorney Discipline Rules, Process, and Sanctions.
