Donor To Judicial Campaign Publicly Reprimanded By Supreme Court





A contributor to the Julie Shapiro Harris Circuit Court judicial campaign was held in contempt and publicly reprimanded by the Florida Supreme Court for failing to comply with Florida Bar.

Nick Steffens, who is also a well-known Democratic activist,  gave $300 to Shapiro Harris’ race.

The current trouble with the Bar stems from an earlier complaint against Steffens. He was suspended in 2011 for 10 days for charging an excessive fee and failing to do the work.  A post about that suspension is here.

Steffens failed to comply with the terms of that suspension order, according to the latest issue of the Florida Bar News.

I was reluctant to write this post originally. I questioned whether it was news that the Bar suspended a judicial campaign donor. readers convinced me that the suspension deserved attention.

“If this was another lawyer, why write about him? Steffens is giving money to a judicial candidate who surely knew about his trouble with the Bar.  What does that say about her?” one key Democratic activist told me.

Blogger Chaz Stevens didn’t need convincing that the Steffens matter was news.  He already wrote it first here.

So keep those e-mails to coming folks.

I read them.


From this current issue of the Florida Bar News:


Nicholas Theodore Steffens, 6810 N. State Road 7, Fl. 2, Coconut Creek, to be publicly reprimanded following an August 7 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2005) Steffens failed to comply with the terms of an Oct. 2011 suspension order. He was directed to adhere to the conditions of a Florida Lawyers Assistance contract, including timely payments of related fees. (Case No. SC13-296)


The Supreme Court order:



11 Responses to “Donor To Judicial Campaign Publicly Reprimanded By Supreme Court”

  1. Marco says:


  2. The Truth says:

    Way to go Buddy, glad to see that after all these years you’re still keepin’ em honest in ways that are hard hitting and politically relevant.

    This story is definitely about Julie’s judicial race, and I think anyone who gives $300 to her is fair game for your particular brand of public humiliation.

    Lastly, don’t feel too bad about getting scooped by Chad Stevens, you more than made up for it by turning the second half of this article into a half hearted apology for the first half.

  3. Put it all out there says:

    The problem for Harris is that her husband is like a black rain cloud that follows the campaign. He has gone around trying to coerce Shulman not to run against his wise. Besides the face he is a top witness against the Mayor of Tamarac in her corruption trial. There is another supporter from Bill Laystrom’s office who also had bar issues. Their treasurer just defended David McLean and lost in his public corruption case. As well as the same Treasurer has been accused in the past of puffing a candidate he worked as Treasurer for with favorable blog posts about the candidate.

    The irony here is Buddy has been very kind in not reporting all of the above, but if you are going to say he is biased hopefully he will let this post be posted so the full picture can be seen.

    For Harris the problem isn’t a questionable donor, it is an accumulation of a number of note worthy events in the campaign that pooled together make a story.

    As you know Buddy, no good deed goes unpunished.

  4. TamaracGuy says:

    Nick Steffens is a no good POS who “thinks” he is some type of political opperative. Fact of the matter is, he is a leech that people use. He is no good at his job and has no friends, yet he thinks he is some type of rock star. This guy is the epitome of the word LOSER!

  5. Sean Phillippi says:

    Buddy, if you routinely look up the Florida Bar disciplinary records of judicial candidate contributors or have some other method through which you find out such information and write about it because you deem there to be some journalistic value then fine. If you never do such a thing and this is the first time you have written such a story, then that, and not what someone else does or says, should tell you whether or not you should have posted this story (The story I was told from my childhood about someone jumping off of a bridge comes to mind).

    Nick is a good friend of mine, a good person, and is an good lawyer. All of the complaints to and from the Florida Bar have to do with Nick not be responsive. While these are not illegitimate complaints, and Nick was not in the right for not being as responsive as he should have been, what Nick did does not rise to the level of severity of other common Florida Bar complaints (such as practicing while having your license suspended, committing gross malpractice, or messing with with a Trust account).

  6. Local lawyer says:

    Good and honest lawyers do not take a retainer from a client, do no work, and then refuse to give back the retainer forcing the client to seek remdy though the bar. Then it appears he ignored the bar in their investigation ending up with Steffens taking plea to 10 day suspension. Then it appears he has refusd to comply with the terms of his plea leading to subsequent bar inquiries.

    By Sean’s logic, if someone who shot and injured someone but didn’t kill them is not that bad of a guy because there wasn’t a murder.

    One can’t be a little pregnant, he misappropriated client funds, whether you are Rothstein or Steffens it makes no difference, you broke a clients trust and that betrays everyone, clients and attorney.

  7. Sean Phillippi says:

    @6: Where to begin? First, I never said that the Nick was in the right with regards to what has transpired with the Florida Bar. I have never accused Nick of being perfect, and never will. That being said, comparing not responding to a client and the Florida Bar to what Rothstein did is laughable. Rothstein got permanently disbarred, and deservedly so, for what he did, which is more than slightly worse that the punishment Nick got.

    Also, can you please point to where anyone claimed that Nick misappropriated client funds? Making such an unsubstantiated claim shows how truly objective and credible you are.

    Lastly, if you actually read what the Supreme Court wrote Nick did comply with the inquiries. He just didn’t do so in a timely manner. While there is no excuse for someone being late in responding to the Florida Bar, being late is better than not responding at all.

    I stand by my comments, I stand by my friend Nick despite his faults, and the fact that you won’t even stand by your comments by using your actual name (there are only 4 or 5 people who could and would have written such a thing) speaks louder than any poorly written blog comment ever will.

  8. Honor & Justice says:

    There are attorneys that do much worse than Nick Steffens — Nick is a busy lawyer – takes on the hard cases and is NOT money hungry. He is a good lawyer! The FL BAR is totally political — We all make mistakes. Mr. Steffens is a excellent attorney and a good person. Life goes on. Lets LOOK at these CORRUPT JUDGES and Lawyers in Broward and Palm Beach County. LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. "CORRUPT JUDGES" says:

    Julie Harris lost her previous run for judgeship because of a corrupt judge. The JQC did not proceed with the complaint. The reason was because said corrupt judge was leaving the bench!!!!! Leaving the bench!!!!! Leaving the bench!!!!!

  10. Honor & Justice says:

    The JQC is a do nothing group political in nature = controlled by Michael Schneider, Gen Counsel… They have a very small budget and do very little….

  11. Barry Harris' Front Teeth says:

    Too bad Mr. Steffens donated to Julie and not to our orthodontics fund! We need that money much more than she does!