On Monday, October 13, 2025, the Florida Bar filed a formal complaint against attorney Larry Elliot Klayman, initiating a reciprocal discipline action based on prior disciplinary measures taken against him in the District of Columbia. The complaint, filed with the Supreme Court of Florida, stems from Klayman’s conduct related to a Nevada pro hac vice application and subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
The case is entitled “The Florida Bar v. Larry Elliot Klayman,” with case no. 2026-50,120(2A).
The Florida Bar’s complaint references the Report and Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number Nine dated September 20, 2023, the Report and Recommendation of the Board of Professional Responsibility dated July 30, 2024, and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Order dated August 7, 2025, which resulted in an eighteen-month suspension for Klayman with a fitness requirement.
The core of the disciplinary action originates from Klayman’s representation of Cliven Bundy in 2016, who faced federal charges in Nevada. Klayman, not licensed in Nevada, sought pro hac vice admission to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. His initial petition for admission was denied by Judge Navarro on March 31, 2016, due to what the court deemed a “misleading and incomplete” disclosure regarding a pending disciplinary proceeding in the District of Columbia related to his former organization, Judicial Watch.
Specifically, the court found that Klayman failed to adequately disclose a prior petition for negotiated discipline and accompanying affidavit where he acknowledged misconduct. While Klayman disclosed the existence of a disciplinary proceeding, he stated the matter was likely to be resolved in his favor with no disciplinary action. The court learned that the prior petition for negotiated discipline had never taken effect because a hearing committee had rejected it.
Subsequently, Klayman filed petitions for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and later with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Bundy’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was being violated. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, citing Klayman’s misrepresentations and omissions to the district court, a pattern of disregard for local rules and ethics, and a lack of respect for the judicial process, including suing the district judge personally. The Supreme Court also denied his petition.
The Ninth Circuit found his assertions regarding Bundy’s local counsel’s experience to be demonstrably false. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed with the Board that Klayman’s misconduct was serious because he repeatedly put forth the same false or misleading statements that he knew were not accurate over a period of two years.
The Florida Bar asserts that these findings are conclusive proof of misconduct under its rules and seeks appropriate disciplinary action.
According to Avvo.com, Mr. Klayman is an attorney in Washington, District of Columbia. He attended the Emory University School of Law. He acquired his law license in Florida in 1977.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
