In January 2023, Adam Joshua Macker retained Florida attorney Kevin Jeffrey Pitts, Florida Bar No. 41911, to represent him in Volusia County criminal cases 2021-102073-CFDL and 2022-02904-CFDL. Pitts is identified in Florida Bar records as practicing through the Law Offices of Kevin J. Pitts, P.A. 

According to Macker’s Florida Bar complaint, federal court filings, and preserved attorney-client text correspondence, Pitts was paid approximately $3,500 and was provided with extensive documentation concerning the circumstances surrounding the criminal cases. This information allegedly included evidence of identity theft, credit-card fraud, disputed and manipulated court records, an allegedly improper driver’s-license suspension, repeated attempts to collect previously satisfied court obligations, internal-affairs complaints, and reports of continuing harassment and surveillance.

Before retaining Pitts, Macker states that he had experienced a prolonged pattern of being followed, monitored, confronted, and harassed—conduct he repeatedly described in his filings and communications as “gang-stalking.” Rather than presenting that characterization as an independently established fact, this page documents it as Macker’s contemporaneous description of repeated incidents in which he believed unknown individuals and law-enforcement personnel were tracking, intimidating, or attempting to provoke him. His federal chronology states that the reported pattern began years earlier and intensified around his license suspension, criminal investigation, arrests, and efforts to report suspected financial misconduct. 

Macker specifically asked Pitts to determine why he appeared to be under investigation, evaluate the evidence supporting the pending charges, seek dismissal where appropriate, consider requesting a change of venue, and prepare the cases for trial. Macker repeatedly maintained that he did not authorize a plea agreement and wanted the underlying evidence tested in open court. He alleges that Pitts failed to meaningfully investigate the documentation, failed to pursue the requested relief, and failed to adequately communicate with him as the cases approached a critical court date.

The April 5, 2023 court-appearance dispute

The most serious allegation concerns the docket sounding scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on April 5, 2023.

According to Macker’s federal filings, Pitts told him during a telephone conversation on or about March 30, 2023 that he did not need to attend the upcoming hearing. Pitts allegedly stated that, although nothing was definite, the fleeing charge would most likely be dismissed because of the lack of evidence.

Macker states that he repeatedly attempted to communicate with Pitts during the approximately two days preceding the hearing but received no meaningful response. The preserved messages show Pitts texting at approximately 8:57 a.m., after the scheduled hearing had already begun:

“We both have to appear at docket sounding.”

A second message at approximately 9:19 a.m. stated:

“This is docket sounding and Monday is trial. You need to be here and if you want to put something on the record today is the day.”

The exhibit identifies the court time as 8:30 a.m. and describes the messages as arriving only after Macker was already expected to be present. Macker states that he did not see the messages until approximately 11:00 a.m., by which time a failure-to-appear warrant had allegedly been issued. 

Macker alleges that Pitts never provided a clear explanation for the sudden reversal, did not adequately warn him that a warrant had been issued, and failed to take immediate corrective action despite knowing that Macker claimed to have relied on the attorney’s prior instructions. The preserved communications also show repeated unanswered messages in which Macker asked Pitts to review the evidence, clarify what was happening in court, and explain his legal options. 

Arrest following the failure-to-appear warrant

Approximately fourteen to fifteen hours after the missed hearing, Volusia County deputies entered Macker’s property during the early morning hours of April 6, 2023 to execute the arrest warrant. Macker alleges that deputies disabled or passed through a gate, entered the residence without a separate search warrant for the property, forced open the front door, entered with weapons drawn, tackled him inside the home, and charged him with resisting arrest.

These allegations later became part of Macker’s federal civil-rights litigation. The federal docket identifies Pitts as a nonparty whose conduct was connected to Macker’s failure to appear, and Pitts later appeared on the docket as a movant in connection with a subpoena directed to his law office. 

Macker contends that the arrest was the foreseeable result of Pitts’s alleged miscommunication and failure to act. He further states that his children were present during the entry and that the incident caused severe emotional, physical, financial, and legal consequences for his family.

Detention, plea, and alleged coercion

After the arrest, Macker states that he was detained without bond. At a subsequent hearing, he believed continued detention was likely and felt pressured to accept 18 months of felony probation so that he could return home and care for his children.

The text correspondence following his release shows Macker repeatedly telling Pitts that he believed the plea had been coerced, that he wanted to challenge it, and that he needed immediate advice concerning an appeal or withdrawal of the plea. Pitts responded that Macker had already accepted the agreement and stated that he would need to demonstrate a “manifest injustice” to withdraw it. 

Macker’s messages also show him asking whether he could appeal, explaining that he accepted probation because he believed bond would otherwise be denied, and asserting that the state could not have successfully tried the underlying cases. He alleges that Pitts failed to timely pursue withdrawal of the plea, an appeal, or other meaningful relief after being informed that the decision had allegedly been made under pressure.

Failure to address the underlying evidence

Throughout the preserved communications, Macker repeatedly directed Pitts to records that he believed demonstrated improper collection practices, duplicated judgments, fraudulent financial entries, an unlawful license suspension, and broader misconduct involving the Volusia Clerk’s Office. Pitts responded in one exchange that the clerk may have added a late fee and suspended the license, but expressed doubt that the clerk and police were working together.

Macker rejected that explanation and continued providing case numbers, payment histories, court records, internal-affairs complaints, and information regarding additional affected residents. The messages show that Pitts was placed on notice of Macker’s allegations and was asked to examine whether the disputed financial records were connected to the criminal prosecutions or could be used in the defense. 

Macker alleges that Pitts failed to fully investigate those records, failed to meaningfully present them to the court, failed to challenge what Macker considered unsupported prosecutions, and failed to adequately protect his client despite being repeatedly warned of the alleged harassment, surveillance, and danger surrounding the cases.

Communications after the plea

The correspondence continued for weeks after Macker’s release. Macker sent Pitts information concerning complaints submitted to Internal Affairs, correspondence sent to Judge Dawn Nichols, records relating to the disputed court debts, and descriptions of the forced entry into his residence. He repeatedly requested legal advice, asked Pitts to communicate with the court, and sought assistance challenging the plea.

Macker’s handwritten notation on the final exhibit states that Pitts continued ignoring him and that one response took approximately five days. The messages also reflect Macker’s belief that Pitts had not defended him to the best of his ability and that the attorney had abandoned him at the most consequential stage of the representation. 

Florida Bar complaint and federal record

Macker subsequently submitted a professional-misconduct complaint concerning Pitts to The Florida Bar, identified on this website as FL-BAR Complaint No. 41911. The complaint and supporting text-message exhibit allege, among other things:

• Failure to maintain adequate communication with a paying client.
• Providing allegedly misleading or inconsistent instructions concerning a required court appearance.
• Waiting until after the scheduled hearing had begun to instruct the client to appear.
• Failing to promptly address the resulting failure-to-appear warrant.
• Failing to adequately investigate evidence supplied by the client.
• Failing to pursue dismissal, a change of venue, trial preparation, or other requested relief.
• Failing to meaningfully challenge an allegedly coerced plea.
• Failing to advise the client promptly concerning appeal or plea-withdrawal options.
• Alleged abandonment of the client during a period of escalating legal and personal danger.

The allegations concerning Pitts also appear within the factual history of Macker’s federal civil-rights case, Macker v. Macker et al., Middle District of Florida Case No. 6:23-cv-01963-JSS-DCI, now associated with Eleventh Circuit Appeal No. 25-12280. The federal docket confirms Pitts’s connection to later subpoena proceedings arising from the case. 

Why this conduct matters

A defense attorney is often the only person standing between an accused citizen and the full power of the government. When a client repeatedly reports threats, harassment, disputed evidence, potential financial misconduct, and fear of additional law-enforcement action, the attorney’s responsibility to communicate clearly, investigate diligently, preserve the client’s rights, and provide accurate instructions becomes especially important.

Macker alleges that Pitts did the opposite: that he accepted payment, received extensive documentation, disregarded repeated warnings, provided inconsistent instructions regarding a mandatory hearing, failed to prevent or promptly correct the resulting warrant, and then failed to effectively challenge the plea that followed the client’s arrest and detention.

This page does not ask the public to accept those allegations without examination. It provides access to the underlying Bar complaint, preserved text correspondence, court filings, and supporting records so readers can independently evaluate what Pitts was told, when he was told, how he responded, and what occurred afterward.

Disclaimer

Important Notice: The statements on this page describe allegations and personal accounts contained in complaints, court filings, text-message exhibits, and other supporting records. Allegations should not be interpreted as final findings of professional misconduct or criminal liability unless expressly established by a court, disciplinary authority, or other authorized tribunal. Readers are encouraged to review the linked source documents and reach their own conclusions.

The Hidden Truth of the Volusia Sheriff's Office