been true at the time the articles were first published as news stories, is still true after all these years. All of these facts and circumstances should be taken into consideration by the referee in determining whether the contents of the advertisement violated rules 4-7.2(b)(l)(B), 4-7.2(b)(3), and 4-7.4(b)(1)(E). We do not offer an opinion concerning these issues or any remaining factual issues. Rather, we direct the referee to take a fresh look at this case in light of this opinion. If necessary, it is also permissible for the Bar to be allowed to amend its complaint prior to the formal hearing before the referee to more particularly identify the factual circumstances alleged by the Bar to give rise to the alleged rule violations. See Fla. Bar v. Batista, 846 So.2d 479 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court approves
holding that  charges should be given more precise content by taxes and fees  holding that  1983 claims accrued when all charges were dismissed rather than a previous date on which the conviction was vacated on the theory that the charges remained pending until the dismissal holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges holding that an exception to the charges having to do with contributory negligence  charges two three and four was insufficient to preserve issue for appeal holding attorneys must be given reasonable notice of the charges they face before the referees hearing on those charges