By Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer
In a significant appellate court development, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the federal racketeering conviction and sentencing for defrauding retired NFL players and other clients of Tallahassee attorney Phillip Timothy Howard. For those unfamiliar with Phillip Timothy Howard or his multiple transgressions (as I was when I began to write this piece), he was a principal at the law firm of Howard & Associates, P.A. based in Tallahassee, Florida and between December 2015 and January 2018, he used his law firm and an assortment of affiliated investment entities to allegedly defraud a number of clients, which included former NFL players, third-party litigation lenders, and a university professor, to the tune of $12.6 million. These victims were largely individuals who had either sustained injuries during their athletic careers and were pursuing compensation through litigation, or those interested in various investment opportunities offered to them by Howard’s firm. The Appeals Court decision underscores the reach of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) into attorney misconduct and highlights the judiciary’s unwillingness to disturb negotiated guilty pleas in complex financial‑fraud prosecutions.
By way of background, in 2023 as a result of his malfeasance, which included no less than wire fraud and money laundering, a federal grand jury indicted Howard on racketeering and related offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Howard subsequently pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to one count of racketeering and U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor sentenced him to 168 month’s imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. The court also imposed a restitution obligation exceeding $12.6 million, representing the actual loss attributable to his conduct, and entered a forfeiture money judgment of approximately $10.65 million under 18 U.S.C. § 1963. It should be noted that the sentence was significantly below the statutory maximum for the RICO offense.
Subsequently, Howard attempted to overturn his conviction and/or reduce his sentence, asserting that the district court erred in its factual or legal determinations regarding his conduct and punishment. In his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Howard argued that his plea deal lacked a sufficient factual basis, nor was it knowing nor voluntary.
In an unpublished opinion issued January 7, 2026, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit rejected each of Howard’s arguments and affirmed the conviction, sentence, restitution order, and forfeiture judgment in full. The court rejected all of Howard’s arguments and pointed to the signed plea agreement and attached statement of facts in which he admitted, among other things, that he founded and ran the entities, recruited former NFL players and other investors, concealed the barred investment manager’s background, and misrepresented how client funds were invested and what returns they could expect. The court also noted that Howard confirmed under oath that he had reviewed and “just signed” the plea agreement in court, understood the charge and the rights he was waiving, and was, in fact, guilty of the conduct described. Although he suggested he did not intend that his clients would be left without money at the end of their investments, he admitted that he failed to disclose material facts he had a duty to reveal, which the court characterized as legally sufficient fraudulent intent. The court therefore found no constitutional defect in the plea and affirmed the conviction. This, together with his prior admissions, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court could reasonably find guilt per the terms outline within the RICO statutes.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Howard’s case carries several important implications for the legal profession. As we are well aware, attorneys are entrusted with the fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, and competence in representing clients. When that trust is breached, particularly in cases involving vulnerable and injured clients, the consequences extend not only to the attorney’s criminal liability but also to the broader reputation of the profession. Disbarment and criminal sanctions serve both punitive and deterrent purposes, sending a clear message that abuse of legal credentials to commit fraud will be vigorously prosecuted and upheld on appeal.
Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation of Howard’s racketeering conviction and sentence serves as a major victory for federal law enforcement and fraud victims alike. The decision reinforces key principles in white-collar criminal jurisprudence: that racketeering statutes apply to professional misconduct cloaked in legitimacy. As for the former NFL players and other victims defrauded by Howard’s racketeering enterprise, this appellate outcome provides legal closure and ensures long-term accountability for a breach of trust that inflicted substantial financial and emotional harm.
