Full Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida THURSDAY, JULY 2, 2026 The Florida Bar, SC2025-0636 Petitioner(s) Lower Tribunal No(s).: v. 20244074(11D) Elizabeth Hidalgo, Respondent(s) The uncontested report of the referee and plea agreement are approved and Respondent Elizabeth Hidalgo is found guilty of indirect criminal contempt for violating previous orders of this Court. See Fla. Bar v. Hidalgo, 888 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2004); Fla. Bar v. Hidalgo, 139 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 2014); Fla. Bar v. Hidalgo, No. SC2021-1264, 2021 WL 4317401 (Fla. Sep. 23, 2021). Respondent is placed on probation and GPS monitoring for five months subject to the probationary supervision of the Advocate Program or similar program and must pay the costs associated with the probation and GPS monitoring to the Advocate Program, under the terms and conditions set forth in the report and plea agreement. As a condition of probation, Respondent is sentenced to five months in the Miami-Dade County Jail. However, the jail sentence CASE NO.: SC2025-0636 Page Two shall be suspended pending completion of probation and GPS monitoring, including abiding by all of the conditions of probation as specified in the report and plea agreement. Respondent shall not engage in the unlicensed practice of law and the orders dated October 28, 2004, April 15, 2014, and September 23, 2021, enjoining Respondent from engaging in the unlicensed practice of law in Florida shall continue in their present form. See Hidalgo, 888 So. 2d at 624; Hidalgo, 139 So. 3d at 888; Hidalgo, 2021 WL 4317401, at *1. Respondent is directed to comply with all other terms and conditions of the report and plea agreement. Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Elizabeth Hidalgo in the amount of $1,692.71, for which sum let execution issue. COURIEL, C.J., and LABARGA, MUÑIZ, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. TANENBAUM, J., dissents with an opinion. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. CASE NO.: SC2025-0636 Page Three TANENBAUM, J., dissenting. We have exclusive jurisdiction “to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.” Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. This administrative authority extends only to the privilege being regulated. That means a person is subject to this court’s regulatory authority at all only if he or she applies to be admitted to practice law or in fact has been admitted to practice law. This court’s administrative authority—which is an extraordinary grant in the first place—can go no further than the constitution’s text allows. The respondent is not a “person[] admitted” to the practice of law, so she is not subject to this court’s otherwise limited regulatory power. Id. Moreover, this court’s contempt power is inherent in, and necessary to, the exercise of its judicial power, but the court does not exercise judicial power in its administrative capacity. The Legislature, vested with the State’s legislative power, has the exclusive authority to regulate the unlicensed practice of law, and it has enacted a statute that makes it a third-degree felony to CASE NO.: SC2025-0636 Page Four do so. See § 454.23, Fla. Stat. The respondent remains subject to prosecution in a criminal proceeding that comports with the usual constitutional protections. The order being entered in this case exceeds the constitutional bounds of this court’s authority. A True Copy Test: SC2025-0636 7/2/2026 SC2025-0636 7/2/2026 SO Served: HON. ROSA DE LA CARIDAD FIGAROLA JACQUELYN PLASNER NEEDELMAN JEFFREY TODD PICKER ROSIE CORDERO-STUTZ, SHERIFF (FOR SERVICE ON MATTHEW ERIC LADD AND EDWARD TAPANES)