510 U.S. 869 Jatoi v. Meier. No. 93-211. Supreme Court of United States. October 4, 1993. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 5th Cir. 2 Certiorari denied. Reported below: 990 F.2d 1253 .

Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111 F.S. and Rule 60Q-2.035 F.A.C. for an underlying disciplinary action in which she ultimately prevailed.Dual practicing lawyer/Certified Public Accountant did not qualify as "small business party" under facts of this case.

Whether Petitioner, Silvia S. Ibanez (Ibanez), is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs pursuant to an underlying rule challenge case in which she prevailed.Prevailing rule challenger not entitled to fees and costs under any theories raised in fees case; covers time on 57.111 and substance; rest waived.

Whether or not existing Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. See, Sections 120.52(8) and 120.56 F.S.Accountants' "holding out" rule declared invalid under numerous subsections of Sec 120.52(8) FS; order declines to discuss constitutionality.

Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint as modified by the August 22, 1991 Order on Reconsideration alleges Respondent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) practiced public accounting in an unlicensed firm by appending the CPA designation after her name in the telephone book and on business cards in violation of Sections 473.323(1)(a), (g), and (h) F.S. and Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint as modified by the August 22, 1991 Order on Reconsideration alleges that Respondent CPA violated Sections 473.323(1), (g), and (h) and Rule 21A-24.001(1)(g) F.A.C. by appending the certified financial planner (CFP) designation along with the CPA designation after her name in the telephone book and on business cards, in that the CFP designation allegedly is an unapproved specialty of accountancy. Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint as modified by the August 22, 1991 Order on Reconsideration alleges that Respondent CPA practiced public accounting by holding herself out as a CPA by appending the CPA designation after her name in the telephone book and on her business cards, implying that she abides by the provisions of Chapter 473 F.S., and is thereby in violation of Sections 473.323(1)(f), (g), and (h) F.S. and Rule 21A-24.001 F.A.C. [no specific subsections cited]."Holding out as Certified Public Accountant (CPA)," "Practicing public accounting," and "associated with," interpreted; legislative intent permitted CPA advertisement; Final Order contrary.