NOTE: This piece was first published on FLGulfNews.com.
By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe
The Sanction That Shook Fort Myers Federal Court
On August 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge John Steele dropped a bomb on Florida attorney Nicholas Chiappetta. The veteran jurist publicly reprimanded Chiappetta, finding he acted in “bad faith” and failed to meet “the professional standards expected from officers of the court.”
The misconduct centered on Chiappetta’s client, TikTok agitator Danesh Noshirvan. During a deposition, Noshirvan called opposing counsel, Julian Jackson-Fannin of Duane Morris LLP, a “pig” and a “low-class racist.”
He then launched a Substack smear campaign, accusing the attorney of sexual assault and racism. Judge Steele said the transcript proved “none of that was true.”
Rather than stopping the abuse, Chiappetta “expressly declined” to restrain his client and later gave him the “green light” to repost defamatory content.
Steele hit Noshirvan with fee sanctions and warned that another episode could mean outright dismissal.
For Chiappetta, Steele issued a written public reprimand under Rule 4-8.4(d), which bars conduct prejudicial to justice.
This is no slap on the wrist. In Florida, similar misconduct has drawn suspensions. In Florida Bar v. Martocci, the Supreme Court benched a lawyer for two years for vulgar deposition conduct. By comparison, Chiappetta not only tolerated client misconduct—he fueled it.
Nick Chiappetta is an unethical lawyer accused of sanctionable conduct in a high-profile case. With a bad-faith finding on record, his law license is dangling by a thread.
Mother Goose Nick Chiappetta: Dirty Conscience, Dirty Website
If Judge Steele’s reprimand weren’t enough, Chiappetta compounded his troubles with false advertising. On his law firm’s website, under “Notable Cases,” Chiappetta touts Noshirvan v. Couture as proof of victory, claiming the defendants “conspired and committed cyber defamation and online reputation and character assassination.”
That is a lie. Judge Steele’s August 12 order flatly rejected conspiracy claims: “The Declaration does not say that Trainor conspired with Camp.” The court found no evidence of a “lynch mob,” racism, or firearms . Yet Chiappetta still markets those accusations as fact.
Florida Bar Rules 4-7.1 and 4-7.2 prohibit misleading advertising. Rule 4-8.4(c) bans dishonesty. Rule 4-1.1 demands competence. Chiappetta flunks all three. The Bar specifically forbids unverifiable boasts like being “trustworthy and skilled.” His site does exactly that.
The Unknown Podcast skewered the duplicity.
“Nick Chiappetta is the scumbag lawyer who represents Danesh,” Richard Luthmann told co-host Michael Volpe.
It’s not just rhetoric. FL Gulf News documented how Chiappetta used Rule 11 as a weapon to silence critics, filing sanctions motions against Luthmann himself. Luthmann blasted him in a letter to the Bar.
“He has a pattern of bad faith recognized by Judge Steele just last week. Attorney Chiappetta should be suspended immediately,” Luthmann said.
This is the heart of Chiappetta’s dirty conscience: mislead the public, mislead the court, and attack those who call him out.
Mother Goose Nick Chiappetta: Questions For the Florida Bar
We asked the Florida Bar for comment and guidance on the consumer protection issues raised by the Chiappetta situation.
As of press time, they did not respond. Here is what we asked:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Monday, August 25th, 2025 at 2:25 PM
Subject: Inquiry on Potential Advertising & Ethics Violations by Attorney Nicholas Chiappetta (Noshrivan)
To: agonzalez@gonzalezcartwright.com <agonzalez@gonzalezcartwright.com>, kdillard1@pbc.gov <kdillard1@pbc.gov>, kjoseph@floridabar.org <kjoseph@floridabar.org>, grasford.smith@akerman.com <grasford.smith@akerman.com>, daniel@ftlinjurylaw.com <daniel@ftlinjurylaw.com>, mgore@jonesfoster.com <mgore@jonesfoster.com>, marcsinensky@gmail.com <marcsinensky@gmail.com>, kemar@goldbergandrosen.com <kemar@goldbergandrosen.com>, heather@greenhillstohlman.com <heather@greenhillstohlman.com>, eroy@sasserlaw.com <eroy@sasserlaw.com>, grasford.smith@akerman.com <grasford.smith@akerman.com>, destiny@kellerswan.com <destiny@kellerswan.com>, nate@sodhispoont.com <nate@sodhispoont.com>, jph@searcylaw.com <jph@searcylaw.com>, ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com>, zmohammed@attorneygl.com <zmohammed@attorneygl.com>, richard.valuntas@myfloridalegal.com <richard.valuntas@myfloridalegal.com>, cmontgomery@hamiltonmillerlaw.com <cmontgomery@hamiltonmillerlaw.com>, kburke@pioffl.com <kburke@pioffl.com>, rberman@floridabar.org <rberman@floridabar.org>, mjgelfand@gelfandarpe.com <mjgelfand@gelfandarpe.com>, lindsayadlerlaw@gmail.com <lindsayadlerlaw@gmail.com>, ngordon@gunster.com <ngordon@gunster.com>, vhazzard@conradscherer.com <vhazzard@conradscherer.com>, kristen.mcmullen@akerman.com <kristen.mcmullen@akerman.com>
CC: Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com>Good Afternoon Florida Bar Fifteenth District Grievance Committee Members,
We are journalists preparing a follow-up on this article:
https://flgulfnews.com/same-kind-of-predator/
We are providing continuing coverage on woke cancel culture “predators” Danesh Noshirvan and Jeremy Hales, and their lawyers Nicholas Chiappetta or Lake Worth, Florida (Noshirvan) and Randall Shochet of Trenton, Florida (Hales).
As part of our investigation, we are exploring all forms of ethical violations and reporting on possible advertising and ethics violations by Florida attorney Nicholas Chiappetta (Chiappetta Trial Lawyers) and others for consumer protection and public interest purposes. We are requesting on-the-record comment and public guidance on the following points so we may properly inform Florida consumers.
Website Claims vs. Judicial Findings
1. On his website (https://www.chiappettalegal.com/team/nick-chiappetta), Mr. Chiappetta lists Noshirvan v. Couture as a case “against multiple defendants who conspired and committed cyber defamation and online reputation and character assassination.” Judge John E. Steele’s August 12, 2025 Opinion and Order in that case found no conspiracy and publicly reprimanded Mr. Chiappetta for bad faith conduct.
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-01218-454-2-cv#
Question: Does advertising unproven allegations as established facts in an ongoing case violate Rules 4-7.1 and 4-7.2?2. [Omitted]
Qualitative and Numerical Claims
3. The website claims Mr. Chiappetta has “won hundreds of personal injury and insurance dispute cases” and has a reputation for being “trustworthy and skilled.”
Question: Do such qualitative claims and round-number figures require objective substantiation under Florida Bar standards, or are they inherently misleading?Sanctions and Automatic Review
4. Judge Steele found that Chiappetta acted in bad faith and issued a public reprimand citing Rule 4-8.4(d). Questions: Does a federal court’s public reprimand automatically trigger Bar review? Or must a separate grievance be filed before an investigation begins?
5. Under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 4-8.3), every lawyer has a duty to report another lawyer’s misconduct if it raises a “substantial question” about that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Because Judge Steele’s order found that Nicholas Chiappetta acted in bad faith and issued a public reprimand for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, are other attorneys who become aware of this misconduct obligated to report him to The Florida Bar?
Attorney Advertising Standards
6. Florida Bar guidance prohibits “statements characterizing the quality of legal services” unless objectively verifiable. Questions: Is “trustworthy and skilled” permissible, or does it violate this restriction? How does the Bar evaluate statements like “we do one thing and do it well” in marketing?
Trial Publicity and Prejudice
7. Chiappetta’s website language presents defendants as already guilty. Question: Could this also fall under Rule 4-3.6 (trial publicity) if the statements have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing the case?
Corrective Action
8. If the Bar finds the website misleading, what corrective steps are ordered? Is removal of content required? Are attorneys directed to issue public corrections? How quickly must compliance occur?
Precedent and Sanctions
9. Please provide recent examples where Florida lawyers were: A) Disciplined for false or misleading online case descriptions, B) Cautioned or suspended for qualitative advertising claims, C) Sanctioned after a federal judge’s public reprimand for litigation misconduct.
10. What is the likely sanction range for a first offense of misleading attorney advertising combined with a federal court’s bad-faith finding—letter of advice, reprimand, suspension?
Transparency and Public Interest
11. When does the Bar publicly confirm an open investigation into an attorney?
12. Will the Bar issue general guidance reminding lawyers not to present allegations as facts in marketing, and to update content after judicial rulings contradict prior claims?
Here are archived screenshots of the Chiappetta website claims in case it is modified.
https://archive.ph/iueij
Additionally, Judge Steele’s August 12, 2025 Opinion and Order is available here for reference:
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-01218-454-2-cv#
We expect to go to press shortly. If we publish before we receive your response, please note that we will incorporate the same into a follow-up.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
If we receive any information from the Florida Bar, we will pass it along in a follow-up.
Carega Lawsuit Piles On For Justice
While Chiappetta spins fables, his client Noshirvan faces fresh fire. In July, financier Stephen Carega filed suit in Lake County, Florida, accusing Noshirvan of doxing, defamation, and reputational destruction.
The complaint reads like a horror novel of cancel culture: “Defendant Noshirvan’s business model centers on public shaming, doxing, and monetizing outrage.”
It accuses him of fabricating a racially charged confrontation and pushing a false narrative that Carega “brandished a firearm” and joined a “lynch mob.”
Luthmann called Noshirvan another “woke Mother Goose” on The Unknown Podcast, just like his ethically-challenged lawyer, Nick Chiappetta.
“No lynch mob, no racism, no firearm. He came up with a story. He’s a woke Mother Goose. And the chickens are coming home to roost,” Luthmann declared.
Carega’s case adds to a mounting pile of lawsuits against Noshirvan. As Volpe noted, “One guy committed suicide, he’s ruined businesses. This is another guy who alleges his life has been destroyed by Danesh.”
Where does Chiappetta fit in?
He is the enabler. The dirty lawyer who dresses up falsehoods as legal claims, then misrepresents them to the public as victories.
His website proclaims clients were vindicated, when federal judges say otherwise.
With Judge Steele’s reprimand on the books and Carega’s suit spotlighting Noshirvan’s pattern, the Florida Bar has little choice. Chiappetta’s conduct is not a one-off—it is a pattern of dishonesty, harassment, and bad faith. Suspension is not just likely. It is overdue.
NOTE: We will continue to follow Attorney Nick Chiappetta’s unraveling.
