Case 1:26-mc-23320 Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2026 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 26-MC-23320-ALTONAGA
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2026-49
tah
IN RE: RONALD JAMES RAMSINGH
FLORIDA BAR # 195553 Jun 18, 2026
____________________________________/
WPB
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
On May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of Florida suspended Ronald James Ramsingh from the
practice of law. (See generally Suspension Order [ECF No. 1]). That suspension was based on Mr.
Ramsingh’s indictment on three criminal charges. (See generally Pet. for Interim Suspension [ECF
No. 4]). On May 14, 2026, the Clerk of this Court entered an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 2],
directing Mr. Ramsingh to explain why the Court should not impose reciprocal discipline in this
District. (See id. 1). 1 On June 1, 2026, Mr. Ramsingh filed a Response [ECF No. 3], recounting
the allegations in the underlying criminal matter; litigating the merits of the charges by reference to
discovery materials; contending he is fit to practice law during the pendency of the criminal case; and
requesting that the Court “quash” the Order to Show Cause and refrain from imposing reciprocal
discipline. (See generally id.).
Under Rule 8(e) of the Southern District of Florida Local Rules Governing the Admission,
Practice, Peer Review, and Discipline of Attorneys (“Attorney Rules”), a final adjudication of
misconduct in another court conclusively establishes the misconduct for purpose of a disciplinary
proceeding in this Court — unless the attorney demonstrates, based on the face of the record from the
other court, that
(1) the procedure in that other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to
be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or (2) there was such an infirmity
1
The Court uses the pagination generated by the electronic CM/ECF database, which appears in the headers
of all court filings.
Case 1:26-mc-23320 Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2026 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 26-23320-MC-ALTONAGA
of proof establishing misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that this Court
could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or (3)
the imposition of the same discipline by this Court would result in grave injustice; or
(4) the misconduct established is deemed by this Court to warrant substantially
different discipline.
Id. Under Rule 8(e), the question is whether the Court should give reciprocal force to the Florida
Supreme Court’s Suspension Order, not whether Mr. Ramsingh’s underlying criminal case is
meritorious or whether he is otherwise fit to practice law. See id.; see also Matter of Calvo, 88 F.3d
962, 967 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he district court is not required to conduct a de novo trial in the first
instance of the attorney’s fitness to practice law.” (alteration added; other alteration adopted;
quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Mr. Ramsingh makes no reference to Rule 8(e). (See generally Resp.). Most of the points
raised in the Response — chiefly regarding the merits of the underlying criminal case — are irrelevant
to the Court’s analysis in considering the imposition of reciprocal discipline.
Mr. Ramsingh raises one assertion responsive to Rule 8(e)(3): he contends he will suffer
injustice and financial burden if the Court imposes reciprocal discipline. (See Resp. 9 (asserting
suspension would create “an extreme and unjust financial burden” in part because of his family’s
financial needs)). The Court is mindful of the need for Mr. Ramsingh to provide for his family. But
Mr. Ramsingh raises an issue that generally applies in this context, and suspension does not impede
his ability to seek and obtain other employment.
Attorney Rule 8(d) provides that after considering a response to an Order to Show Cause, “the
Court may impose . . . identical discipline or may impose any other sanction the Court may deem
appropriate.” Id. (alteration added). Under Attorney Rule 8(d) and the Court’s inherent authority
2
Case 1:26-mc-23320 Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2026 Page 3 of 3
CASE NO. 26-23320-MC-ALTONAGA
to oversee membership in its bar and safeguard the public interest, see Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (citation omitted), it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. Mr. Ramsingh is suspended from the practice of law in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, effective immediately. He may not resume practice before this
Court unless and until reinstated by court order. See Att’y Rule 12(a).
2. Within 14 days of receipt of this Order, Mr. Ramsingh shall notify the Clerk of Court
of any active cases in which he appears as counsel or co-counsel of record in this District.
3. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE Mr. Ramsingh from the roll of attorneys authorized
to practice before this Court and to immediately revoke his CM/ECF credentials.
4. The Clerk shall promptly attempt service of this Order via certified mail to Mr.
Ramsingh’s court record address and any addresses on file with The Florida Bar.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 18th day of June, 2026.
________________________________________
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: All South Florida Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judges
All Southern District of Florida District Judges, Bankruptcy Judges, and Magistrate Judges
United States Attorney
Circuit Executive
Federal Public Defender
Clerks of Court (SDFL District and Bankruptcy) and Eleventh Circuit
Northern District of Georgia
Florida Bar and National Lawyer Regulatory Data Bank
Library
Ronald James Ramsingh
3
