such duty. Nevertheless since the rules do establish standards of conduct by lawyers, a lawyer’s violation of a rule may be evidence of a breach of the applicable standard of conduct. (Emphasis added). Plaintiffs assert that the last sentence above mandates the admission of any rule of professional conduct claimed to have been violated by a defendant, and therefore, our standard of review is de novo. We previously have observed that “a [violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility does not prove negligence per se, ... but it may be used as some evidence of negligence.” Oberon Invs., N.V. v. Angel, Cohen & Rogovin, 492 So.2d 1113, 1114 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 512 So.2d 192 (Fla.1987). See also Pressley v. Farley, 579 So.2d 160, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have failed to
holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures holding violation of the rules of professional conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se although it may be used as some evidence of negligence holding that although violation of rules of professional conduct does not constitute negligence per se such violations may be relevant and admissible in assessing the legal duty of an attorney in a malpractice action and whether that duty was breached holding osha violations may be used as evidence of negligence per se under fela holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se