Tag Archive for: bar hearings

Florida Lawyers Draw Suspicion in Foreclosure Mess

Recently a Palm Beach Post article by Christine Stapleton and Kimberly Miller stated that young Florida lawyers out of law school and looking for work,  found steady paychecks in burgeoning firms whose business is based on repossessing the American dream.

The article states that more than 260 attorneys work at four of Florida’s largest foreclosure firms, and 48 percent of them have been practicing law for less than three years, according to Florida Bar records obtained by The Palm Beach Post.

With this fall’s allegations of forged foreclosure documents, fraudulent notarizations and questionable affidavits submitted in tens of thousands of foreclosure cases, those nascent lawyers are now under a cloud of suspicion.

Some may face Florida Bar investigations that could end their careers, while homeowner advocates wonder whether the foreclosure crisis would have reached its state of disorder if it weren’t for legions of novice lawyers doing the legwork.

And as the state’s overwhelmed court system sorts through the foreclosure chaos, many of the attorneys who worked for the now deposed law firms have been hired at other large companies doing foreclosure work.

The Palm Beach Post stated that the Atlanta-based McCalla Raymer law firm, which handles foreclosures for mortgage giant Fannie Mae in Georgia, hopes to do the same in Florida. In November, as the firm began setting up shop in Orlando with 10 former attorneys of a diposed Florida firm, disgruntled homeowners in Georgia filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the firm, claiming it used forged documents to take their homes, often while they were in the midst of modifying their loans. This month four other Georgia homeowners – who are representing themselves – have filed similar lawsuits against McCalla Raymer.

The firm initially registered to do business in Florida as McCalla Raymer Florida LLC but dissolved that firm a month later and is now registered to do business in Florida as Stone, McGehee & Silver. The firm, which hired former Fannie Mae associate general counsel and foreclosure expert Susan Reid last month, has plans to expand throughout Florida, advertising for attorneys in Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, Miami and Orlando. While at Fannie Mae, Reid worked with foreclosure attorneys in its retained attorney network, including those from an office that was diposed in Florida.

Still, the distribution of former attorneys from a diposed firm to other firms feels like an injustice to some home­owners in foreclosure.

In sworn statements taken by the state attorney general’s office, two former employees of a diposed Florida firm – a paralegal and a legal assistant – attest to wrongdoing at the firm that included hiding problem files from federal auditors, forging signatures and making up documents as staff struggled to keep up with a mounting volume of foreclosures.

Lack of experience could have led young lawyers to follow their employer’s lead, unaware they may be committing an offense, nonetheless lawyers share a large portion of blame in the foreclosure fracas.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 22 ATTORNEYS 10/28/10

On October 28, 2010, The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announces that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 22 attorneys, disbarring eight and suspending 12. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Two attorneys were publicly reprimanded and one was ordered to pay restitution.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation, are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles and may be reviewed at and/or downloaded from The Florida Bar’s website.

The court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, fewer than five percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.
This information was obtained from The Florida Bar’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA’S SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 18 ATTORNEYS 9/30/10

The Florida Bar, Florida’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announces that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 18 attorneys, disbarring six and suspending eight. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Four attorneys were publicly reprimanded and one was placed on probation. One attorney was also ordered to pay restitution.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles.

The court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, fewer than five percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.

This information was obtained from The Florida Bar’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

The Disciplinary Actions for Substance-Abusing Attorneys Vary Widely

In the National Law Journal, Leigh Jones writes that an Indiana lawyer shows up at the courthouse drunk and gets into a car accident. His license is suspended, but stayed, for 180 days. A New Hampshire attorney and admitted alcoholic takes on what turns out to be a meritless case and conceals the defeat from clients. He is disbarred.

Also, an Iowa attorney and self-described alcohol abuser involved in a series of disciplinary actions, including taking a client’s money and abandoning a divorce case, gets a license suspension. He can apply to renew it in six months. Meanwhile, a Florida attorney who’s been sober and in a 12-step program since his arrest on drug charges in 2004 is disbarred for the six-year-old offense.

Each of these four cases involved substance abuse — and each had a very different outcome. The decisions, all from the past two years, show how broad the inconsistencies are in the way courts dole out punishment for substance-abusing attorneys. Whether because of uneven precedent, murky ethics rules or a hard-line stance against recognizing addiction as a mitigating factor in misconduct, courts can give attorneys little more than a slap on the wrist in some cases. In others, careers are finished.

In the Iowa case, for example, the court found that attorney Ross Hauser, who had practiced for 23 years, abandoned his client’s divorce action and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints. Records indicated that he admitted having a history of alcohol abuse. The Iowa Supreme Court in May, while recognizing the attorney’s multiple previous discipline problems, suspended his license with a chance for reinstatement after six months. The court rejected a recommendation by the state’s grievance commission that he provide ongoing evidence that substance abuse was not affecting his practice. The court wrote that it did not have a system in place to do so.

“There are concerns that attorneys are not being dealt with, one, in an enlightened manner and, two, consistently,” said Judge Robert Childers, chairman of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs. He sits on the Tennessee Circuit Court’s 30th Judicial District, based in Memphis.

In New Hampshire, William Conner took on a case representing a couple suing a contractor over the construction of their home. Court records said the lawyer, who admitted that he was an alcoholic and had a previous public censure, failed to pursue the case, which was later determined meritless. The court said he also hid from the couple that the case had been dismissed. The court ruled that, although alcoholism can be a mitigating factor, disbarment was the only appropriate punishment for him.

But, Indiana attorney Peter Katic appeared in court with a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit and was involved in a car accident while intoxicated, according to court records. The Indiana Supreme Court last year suspended Katic, who had previously served as a judge and had been disciplined twice for judicial misconduct, for six months. It stayed the suspension provided that he meet the monitoring requirements of the lawyer assistance program.

Bill Weigel, president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel, recognizes the inconsistencies in how disciplinary bodies and courts deal with substance-abuse problems. Because the cases are so “fact specific,” consistency can be difficult to achieve, he said. “These cases are so situational.”

Richard Baron would like to think that courts have become more enlightened about attorney addiction, but he’s not convinced. For 25 years, Baron has represented attorneys, most with substance-abuse issues, in disciplinary actions. In August, he had one of the biggest surprises of his career. Although his client, Daniel Noah Liberman, had been drug- and alcohol-free for six years, the Florida Supreme Court disbarred him following his guilty plea to a 2004 drug trafficking charge. The court on Aug. 26 rejected a referee’s recommendation that Liberman receive a three-year suspension. He had no previous arrests or discipline problems. The court noted that he “had an illness; he was drug addict.”

Liberman, who had been supplying friends with small amounts of metham­phetamine and Ecstasy, was asked by a friend, who unbeknownst to Liberman had been arrested and was working as an informant, to supply him with Ecstasy for a party. The amount Liberman supplied met the limit for a trafficking charge.

In a dissent, Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente wrote that Liberman had accepted responsibility for his conduct, had gone into a rehabilitation program immediately following his arrest and always had tested negative on random drug tests. He was a supervising tutor for children at a charity serving poor and homeless people. The justice wrote that he had continued to work as a paralegal and was “a productive member of society.” She noted that there was no evidence that Liberman’s conduct had harmed any clients.

Even so, the majority concluded that only disbarment could “measure up to the gravity of a conviction for illegal drug trafficking.” The majority also determined that the mitigating circumstances were insufficient to warrant anything less than disbarment. Liberman did not respond to requests for an interview. Baron said the decision demonstrates a “hard right turn” by the court and ignores precedent in a strikingly similar case. “They were out to punish him,” Baron said.

PREVENTION VS. PUNISHMENT

There are about 45 lawyers assistance programs across the country, most of which work directly with bar counsel and courts to provide confidential support and facilitate addiction recovery through drug testing, 12-step programs and mental health assistance. In many states, they provide recovery “contracts” with attorneys, who agree to submit to monitoring.

John Clegg wishes he’d never gotten involved with a lawyers assistance program. The former partner at McGlinchey Stafford got help from the Louisiana program in 2006 for a cocaine addiction after firm leaders confronted him about his erratic behavior. His billing had become inconsistent, he was looking disheveled at work and he had behaved aggressively during a firm-hosted golf tournament, where he told an off-color joke that offended attendees.

Firm leaders and lawyers assistance workers held an intervention for Clegg, who admitted that he had used crack cocaine. He went to 90-day in-patient treatment, and once he got out, he returned to work at the firm under a five-year “contract” with the assistance program.

With his approval, program workers monitored his recovery and — because he had waived the program’s duty of confidentiality — they communicated with the law firm about his recovery progress. When he twice tested positive for drug use, however, the firm, compelled by its duty to its clients, alerted disciplinary authorities.

In July, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that, although assistance program volunteers and employees had a duty of confidentiality that participants can waive, that duty did not extend to law firms themselves. The court suspended Clegg for a year and a day and deferred all but six months on the condition that he continue treatment through the lawyers assistance program.

Clegg, who could not be reached for comment for this story, said at the time the decision was issued that he had planned to seek rehabilitation on his own before the intervention but decided to use the Louisiana program once co-workers confronted him. He made the wrong decision about getting help with the Louisiana program, he said. The ruling, he believes, served as a deterrent to getting help. “You’re just setting yourself up for discipline,” he said. “The only charges against me were because I was a [legal assistance program] participant.”

ABA RULES

A way to bring consistency to disciplinary actions involving substance abuse may be through the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Last year, the ABA adopted a rule that substance abuse and mental health professionals hailed as a victory.

The rule allows for the conditional admission to practice for law graduates who have experienced chemical dependency. It provides that applicants who otherwise meet requirements but could have been prohibited from admission because of past drug or alcohol problems can practice if they demonstrate rehabilitation.

Four states are considering adopting the rule. Eighteen already have similar provisions in place. The purpose of the change is to prevent applicants seeking admission to the bar from keeping their addiction and recovery a secret. Otherwise qualified applicants often do not disclose their problems for fear they will prohibit admission, said Childers, chairman of the ABA’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs. Childers pushed for the ABA’s new rule. “It encourages students to get help early on,” he said.

The new rule is not about coddling lawyers, he said. “This really is aimed a protecting the public. There are lawyers out there getting licensed with no conditions, no monitoring in place.”

Childers said he is aware of the Liber­man disbarment in Florida and is troubled by it. The commission will hold its annual conference in October. He expects much discussion about the Liberman case. “I’m hoping it’s an aberration,” he said.

Creating a rule to bring about consistency for existing attorneys is more difficult than dealing with attorneys seeking admission, Childers said. The facts of each case vary significantly, including whether there are prior sanctions, the number of misconduct claims, the degree of client harm and whether laws were broken. The key, he said, is to bring all parties to the table, including bar counsel, judges and health care professionals, and to work through the ABA commission’s “protocol” to create a proposal.

“I’d like to see absolute uniformity, but the facts of every case are different,” he said. “That’s why we have judges.”

This article is from the National Law Journal.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA’S SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 21 ATTORNEYS 8/31/10

It was announced on Aug. 31, 2010, on The Florida Bar’s websited that The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 21 attorneys, disbarring seven and suspending 11. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Three attorneys were publicly reprimanded and one was placed on probation. Two were ordered to pay restitution.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles.

The court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, fewer than five percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.

This information was obtained from The Florida Bar’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

Florida Paralegals ask to be Bar Licensed and Regulated

Gary Blankenship wrote in his article for The Florida Bar’s, The Florida Bar News, that as part of the required three-year review of the Bar’s voluntary Florida Registered Paralegal program, the Bar is looking into the request by some paralegals that they be licensed and regulated by the Bar or the Supreme Court.

It was announced that The Bar Board of Governors, at its July 23 meeting, approved a recommendation from the Program Evaluation Committee to set up a nine-member committee to examine regulating paralegals.

“That program [FRP] is up for review right now. But the registered paralegals have requested that we look into requiring that they be regulated in some form or fashion, and their request specifically is that they be regulated by The Florida Bar or the Florida Supreme Court,” said board member Greg Coleman, chair of the Program Evaluation Committee, which will review the registered paralegal program.

Coleman noted that several years ago, paralegals went to the Legislature to request mandatory regulation. That measure died when the Bar agreed to study the issue, which led to the registered paralegal program.

“This time they came to us first. We had quite a long discussion,” Coleman said. “We think it is worthwhile exploring and think it’s something that should be discussed and vetted.”

It was announced that the new committee will include three members from the PEC subcommittee, three paralegals, and three others chosen by Bar President Mayanne Downs.

“The [PEC] motion was to have this committee appointed to explore this issue of paralegal regulation and anything else the president wants to throw into the mix,” Coleman said. “There’s a real threshold question on whether the Supreme Court can regulate paralegals, and that will be looked at.”

Notably, the board approved the recommendation by a voice vote.

Mark Workman, president of the Florida Alliance of Paralegal Associations, said regulation would protect the public by helping to crack down on unsupervised paralegals who do unauthorized legal work and also help in “setting educational standards, ethical guidelines and to enhance the public’s perception of who we are and what we can and cannot do.”

Workman also said, “We want to have a valid say in our direction . . . in the direction the paralegal profession goes.”

Workman added that his organization performed a survey of paralegals and the preliminary results showed 95 percent felt the $150, which is paid annually to the Bar by those participating in the Florida Registered Paralegal program, should be spent exclusively on matters to help and advance paralegals.

Ninety percent said paralegal representatives on the Bar’s FRP Committee should be elected by paralegals rather than appointed by the Bar; 87 percent said paralegals should have a voice in their profession, he said. Another 79 percent favor mandatory regulation of paralegals, but only 50 percent thought the Bar’s existing FRP program should be mandatory.

“We do want more control over our profession,” Workman said. “We believe that it is through the Supreme Court that we should be regulated; it needs to stem from the Supreme Court and not directly from The Florida Bar.”

Johnna Phillips, a former president of the Paralegal Association of Florida and a member of the Bar committee that came up with the current FRP program, said mandatory regulation is a logical step and not necessarily a major change from the current program.

It could be as simple as requiring that anyone using or given the title paralegal meet the education and testing requirements of the FRP program. That includes passing one of two nationally recognized paralegal certification exams.

It would also abolish the current grandfather clause, due to expire in another year, of the FRP program, she said.

“We would want something that is very similar to the provisions of the FRP program without the grandfathering,” Phillips said. “Candidates would have to meet the credentials of the FRP program at the time the sunset goes away. There would be a mandatory education requirement for those who call themselves paralegals.”

Paralegals wanted a mandatory scheme when the FRP program was set up, and accepted that as a first step, she said.

“I think mandatory would be the next reasonable step in the process,” Phillips said. “There are a whole host of other categories inside the legal team; legal secretaries and legal assistants are certainly part of the legal team. Our time is being billed out and clients should have some sense of assurance when they’re seeing time billed for a paralegal; it is truly someone who is a paralegal.”

This article appeared on The Florida Bar’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 27 ATTORNEYS

On July 29,2010, The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announced that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 27 attorneys, disbarring eight and suspending 17. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Two attorneys were publicly reprimanded and three were placed on probation. Three were ordered to pay restitution.

The Florida Bar, as an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles and may be reviewed at and/or downloaded from The Florida Bar’s website.

The court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, fewer than 5 percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.

The above information was obtained from The Florida Bar’s website.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents Florida Bar applicants and attorneys,  before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners and the Florida Bar Grievance Committee. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

 

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 21 ATTORNEYS

On June 30,2010, The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announced that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 21 attorneys, disbarring six and suspending nine. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Seven attorneys were publicly reprimanded and four were placed on probation. Four were ordered to pay restitution.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida.

Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, less than 5 percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.
This information was obtained from The Florida Bar website.
The following lawyers are disciplined:

Leo Becerra, Jr., 6780 Coral Way, Miami, suspended until further order, following a May 26 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1999) According to a petition for emergency suspension, there was clear, convincing evidence that Becerra misappropriated and/or diverted client funds. (Case No. SC10-947)

Kathleen M. P. Davis, P.O. Box 542796, Greenacres, to be publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for one year following a March 25 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1995) Further, Davis shall pay restitution of $15,000 to three clients. After accepting retainer fees from clients in two separate family law cases, Davis failed to diligently pursue the cases. (Case No. SC09-1979)

Jose Miguel De la O, P.O. Box 347106, Coral Gables, disbarred on consent, effective 30 days from a May 20 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1986) De La O failed to use client funds as instructed by his clients. He also failed to preserve and apply client funds in accordance with Rules Regulating Trust Accounts. (Case No. SC10-848)

Gary Elvin Doane, 738 W. Colonial Drive, Orlando, to be publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for one year, effective immediately, following a May 20 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1977) In advertising his services, Doane used the trade name “Legal Experts,” when he was a sole practitioner who was certified by The Florida Bar in only one area of the law — civil trial. (Case No. SC08-1278)

Michael Sean Foster, 1398 SW 1st St., Miami, suspended for two years, following a May 13 court order. The suspension shall run consecutive to the suspension imposed on Oct. 8, 2009. (Admitted to practice: 2004) Foster accepted representing numerous clients and thereafter failed to communicate with them; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; failed to appear at court hearings; charged an excessive fee; refused to respond to the investigative inquiries of The Florida Bar; and refused to participate in the disciplinary process before the grievance committee. (Case No. SC09-2028)

Gary D Gelch, 1318 SE 2nd Ave., Fort Lauderdale, to be publicly reprimanded following an April 15 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1995) Gelch pleaded guilty to failure to competently represent a client and failure to be truthful in representing her case. (Case No. SC10-581)

Joseph Kevin Hall, 5721 S.W. 17th St., Plantation, to be publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for one year, following a May 6 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1996) After being retained to provide legal services, Hall failed to communicate with the client. (Case No. SC10-579)

Eric D. Hightower, 2815 Cuyahoga Lane, West Palm Beach, suspended for six months, effective immediately, following an April 15 court order. Three months of the suspension shall run concurrent with his current 30-month suspension and three months shall follow his current 30-month suspension. (Admitted to practice: 1988) Hightower is the subject of three separate Florida Bar discipline matters. He was hired to represent clients, but he failed to timely notify clients and the court of his suspension. (Case No. SC09-1661)

Dwayne Bisford Johnson, Sr., 733 Cypress Drive Apt. A, Lake Park, suspended for 91 days, effective thirty days from a May 20 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1998) Johnson shall pay restitution of $500.00 to one client. Because of delinquencies of CLE requirements, basic skills course requirements and Bar fees, Johnson was prohibited from practicing law in Florida from Jan. 31, 2008 through March 13, 2009. Johnson practiced law during that period despite his ineligibility. (Case Nos. SC09-1846 & SC09-1889)

Nicolas Andres Manzini, 169 E. Flagler St., Suite 1500, Miami, disbarred effective 30 days from an April 1 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1978) Manzini is the subject of four separate Florida Bar disciplinary matters. (Case No. SC10-562)

Omar Medina, Jr., 505 S. Magnolia Ave., Tampa, suspended for 90 days, effective June 24, following a May 12 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1989) After the suspension expires, Media will be placed on probation for three years. Further, Medina shall receive a public reprimand. In one instance Media signed an attorney’s name to a settlement document without the other attorney’s knowledge or permission. He also failed to tell opposing counsel that the signature for the other attorney was not genuine. In another case, an audit of Medina’s trust account revealed that Medina failed to maintain required trust account records. (Case Nos. SC09-164 & SC09-644)

Joseph Barry Miller, 235 Porto Vecchio Way, Palm Beach Gardens, suspended effective 30 days from a May 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1973) Miller pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, in relation to moneys obtained as a result of fraudulent mortgages, a felony. (Case No. SC10-942)

Jill Beth Newman, 8615 Indian River Run, Boynton Beach, suspended for two years effective retroactive to May 6, 2009, following an April 23 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2000) Newman falsely represented that she was holding escrow deposits in her trust account, when in fact, she had not received or deposited funds. She deposited operating account funds to cover shortages in her trust account; and an audit of Newman’s trust account revealed that multiple deposit slips had no indication for the client or the matter for which the funds were received. Newman’s bank records subpoenaed by the Bar revealed that Newman wrote two checks totaling $20,000, when her operating account was overdrawn by more than $1,700. (Case No. SC-09-37)

Frank T. Noska, P.O. Box 254, Palm Beach, to be publicly reprimanded following an April 15 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1982) Further, Noska shall pay restitution of more than $15,000 to three clients. After being retained to handle two separate tax cases, Noska entrusted much of the day-to-day handling of the matters to people who were not licensed Florida attorneys. Noska did not properly supervise the non-lawyers to ensure that deadlines were met and files were properly managed. (Case Nos. SC10-158 & SC10-507)

Natalia V. Poliakova, 2837 S.W. 3rd Ave., Miami, suspended for six months, effective 30 days from a May 20 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2000) Further, Poliakova shall pay restitution of $500.00 to one client. Poliakova was retained to assist with the filing of an application for lawful permanent residence status (Green Card) for a family. She failed to inform the clients of the denial of the Green Card application and their right to appeal, and she failed to provide timely responses to inquires from The Florida Bar. Poliakova also knowingly made a false statement of material fact to the grievance committee. (Case No. SC10-160)

Tashi Iana Richards, 7920 N.W. 6th St. Apt. 205, Pembroke Pines, permanently disbarred effective immediately, following a May 6 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2004) After accepting a retainer of $5,000 to handle legal issues involving contractor workmanship, code enforcement and a possible foreclosure, Richards failed to communicate with the client. As a result, the client and her family were harmed by Richards’ failure to act. Richards also failed to respond to a letter sent to her by The Florida Bar regarding the case. (Case No. SC09-2247)

Daniel J. Rose, 323 N.E. 6th Ave., Delray Beach, to be publicly reprimanded following an April 15 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2001) Rose is the subject of two Florida Bar disciplinary matters. In one instance, a couple authorized their daughter to sign their names on a mortgage note. Rose notarized the signatures, knowing they had not actually signed the document. In another instance, an examination of Rose’s trust account records revealed that he had commingled funds. (Case No. SC10-584)

Vincent Tony Sammarco, P.O. Box 841026, Pembroke Pines, disbarred effective immediately, following an April 15 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1983) As an agent for the Attorney’s Title Insurance Fund, Sammarco failed to preserve and issue the Fund’s title insurance forms or conduct real estate closings in a prudent manner. He also failed to properly preserve and disburse funds he held in trust that were to be used to pay off mortgages after real estate closings. (Case No. SC10-635)

Raul Javier Sanchez de Varona, 1320 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 280, Coral Gables, disbarred effective 30 days from an April 15 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1990) Subsequent to a disciplinary resignation in 2004, Sanchez de Varona held himself out as an attorney. He admitted that in November 2009, he signed and transmitted an e-mail designating himself as the “general counsel” for a corporation in which he held an ownership interest. (Case No. SC10-593)

James L. Soule, 7515 W. Oakland Park Blvd. #100, Fort Lauderdale, suspended for 91 days following a June 3 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1994) Soule is currently suspended, therefore the suspension is effective immediately. In one instance, Soule was retained to handle several civil matters. While representing the client, Soule began handling a financial investment as well. When asked to return the investment funds of $135,000, Soule failed to do so. In another instance, Soule failed to pay the $4,000 balance due in a final judgment. (Case No. SC09-1845)

Cynthia Gaskins Strickland, 2450 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 303B, Hollywood, permanently disbarred effective immediately, following an April 29 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2000) A preliminary examination of Strickland’s trust account records by The Florida Bar revealed evidence of misappropriation of client funds as well as a pattern of using recent deposits to cover obligations incurred previously. (Case No. SC09-2009)

Soreide Law Group represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA BAR WARNS PUBLIC ABOUT UNETHICAL LAWYERS ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE GULF OIL SPILL.

It was reported in the Historic City News of St. John’s County, FL, that reporters have received an advisory from The Florida Bar regarding the gulf oil spill and their commitment to protect the public from unethical lawyers as well as non-lawyers offering legal representation.

To assist legitimate disaster victims who may need legal representation, there are several guides in the Public Information section of www.floridabar.org , including “Mass Disaster – A Victim’s Guide,” “A Consumer Guide to Client’s Rights,” “How to Find a Lawyer in Florida” and “Who Should I Hire to Help Me with My Legal Problem.”

Although to date there have been no recorded injuries to St. Johns County’s coastline, The Florida Bar is aware that there are unethical lawyers and non-lawyers offering legal representation under the pretense of consumer advocacy “watchdogs” or “whistleblowers” when, in reality, their true purpose is to instigate frivolous actions and defraud their clients of their time and money.

Floridians looking for a lawyer should make sure the person they are considering is eligible to practice in our state. This can be done by going to www.floridabar.org and using the Find a Lawyer feature in the blue bar at the top of the page. The search will link to a profile page that lists the lawyer’s eligibility to practice, address, Bar number and, in some cases, areas of legal practice. If you have questions about a lawyer’s status, call the membership records department at The Florida Bar toll-free at 1-866-854-5050.

Although there are limited circumstances when lawyers who are not licensed to practice in Florida may be authorized to appear in court, out-of-state lawyers may not be able to represent you. Consumers must also be cautious about non-lawyers or organizations that offer to provide legal representation. If you believe a person offering legal representation is not a lawyer or is not eligible to practice law in Florida, call The Florida Bar Unlicensed Practice of Law Department toll-free at 1-800-342-8060, extension 5840.

Bar-sponsored lawyer referral services are also available statewide; for a referral please call toll-free 1-800-342-8011.

Lawyer Conduct:
In the event of a disaster, such as the current oil spill, The Florida Bar is on high alert for violations of its rules especially with regard to solicitation. The Florida Bar will also be vigilant in investigating all complaints filed against individual lawyers who may be in violation of the solicitation rules.

Lawyers cannot mail solicitations within 30 days of a disaster causing personal injury or actual property damage, however, the 30-day rule does not apply if the only damages are economic. Direct mail solicitations must comply with the bar’s lawyer advertising rules and be filed with The Florida Bar for review. Fees from solicitation are subject to forfeiture in cases involving violations of the advertising rules.

Solicitation, whether by a lawyer personally or by someone else on his or her behalf, is prohibited, according to Bar Rule 4-7.4. Solicitation includes any direct contact face-to-face, by telephone, by fax or telegraph. It includes passing out business cards or other law firm information.

Volunteer lawyers who are offering their services to victims at no charge do not violate the anti-solicitation rule.

Soreide Law Group represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services or to speak to an attorney please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 20 ATTORNEYS 5/25/10

On May 25, 2010,The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announced that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 20 attorneys, disbarring six and suspending eight. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Five attorneys were publicly reprimanded and three were placed on probation.

Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, less than 5 percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida.

Soreide Law Group represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services or to speak to an attorney please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.