Tag Archive for: florida bar application

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES EIGHT ATTORNEYS

Summary of orders issued Oct. 5 – Dec. 1, 2010

On The Florida Bar’s website, it was announced 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 eight attorneys, disbarring one and suspending six. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. One attorney was publicly reprimanded. Four attorneys were ordered to pay restitution.

It was noted that as an official arm 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 90,000-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 The Florida Bar’s website.
These 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.

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 11/30/10

It was announced November 30, 2010 by The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders has disciplined 18 attorneys, disbarring eight and suspending seven. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Two attorneys were publicly reprimanded and three were placed on probation. One attorney was also ordered to pay restitution.

The Florida Bar, an official arm 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 90,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida.

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. The 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 LOMAS program going strong at 30

LOMAS helps Florida attorneys with all aspects of law practice management  

The Florida Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance Service is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year writes Mark Killian for The Florida Bar News. The LOMAS program provides a wide range of law practice management information, services, and products to Bar members.

“Many lawyers lack the business management skills necessary to manage their law offices properly or market their law practices effectively,” said Jerry Sullenberger, a LOMAS practice management advisor.

The dirctor of LOMAS, Judith Equels, said the majority of law schools still do not teach practice management skills and best practices, such as trust accounting compliance, calendar control, human resources management, risk and conflict avoidance, client relations, and technology management.

Of the 30-plus state, local, and provincial bars that now have practice management programs, LOMAS is considered the granddaddy of the concept since the 1980 roll-out by The Florida Bar of a program offering law office management assistance.

In addition to on-site consultations, and presenting dozens of seminars each year, LOMAS responds to thousands of telephone calls and e-mails from Bar members annually on topics such as establishing and maintaining a conflict-of-interest system; maintaining a trust account; effective client communication techniques; effective docket control and calendaring procedures; as well as basic information on how to establish and operate a solo practice, including technology advice.

Norman Vaughan-Birch, the Board of Governor’s liaison to the LOMAS Advisory Board, thinks more lawyers should take advantage of the low-cost resources LOMAS provides — especially young lawyers striking out on their own in this down economy.

“It’s how you balance your budget; it’s how you create trust accounts, some of the things that are pitfalls for young lawyers,” Vaughan-Birch said. “LOMAS has all kinds of programs for sole practitioners.”

And LOMAS is not just for solos. Vaughan-Birch, the managing partner of the 18-lawyer Kirk Pinkerton firm in Sarasota, brought LOMAS in a year ago to give his office the once-over. Vaughan-Birch wanted to know if the firm was adequately staffed, if their administrative procedures were adequate, their technology up to date, and if there were more efficient or smarter ways to conduct business.

“It’s like an annual physical: They poke you everywhere,” said Vaughan-Birch, adding the cost was “relatively inexpensive, certainly compared to any of the large consulting firms that would come in and basically tell you the same things.”

Equels said LOMAS doesn’t soft-pedal the issues and challenges identified during a private on-site consultation.

“We conduct an in-depth review of the strengths and weaknesses of your practice, focusing on recommendations that help lawyers manage risk, cut costs, and improve profitability,” Equels said. “Our goal is to provide lawyers with the law practice management knowledge and tools to implement policies, processes, and procedures that will make the office run more efficiently and effectively.”

Equels said often the lawyers are already aware of the issues, but need assistance in identifying and implementing solutions. She said each consultation is tailored to address specific issues within the practice and that, in every case, the managing attorneys set the parameters of the consultations.

Vaughan-Birch said having LOMAS check out your operations is “absolutely one of the best investments you can make.”

In the Beginning
The late Sam Smith, former president of the Bar, in a speech to the Board of Governors in 1978, said that the Bar should offer “an ounce of prevention that potentially prevents this costly pound of cure,” according to retired Judge Walter S. Crumbley, a past chair of the LOMAS Advisory Board.

“His comment came during consideration of the 1978 budget when the Bar was considering a request for additional prosecutors for the disciplinary arm of The Florida Bar,” Crumbley said.

“Out of this comment and later committee work came the idea to create a membership fees-supported service dedicated to educating the membership on how to run a practice in an economical and professional manner that, hopefully, would slow down the number of grievance cases filed with the Bar’s Lawyer Regulation Department.”

Tampa’s David Shear, president of the Bar in 1979, once said the creation of LOMAS was one of the proudest moments of his administration.

“I had a vision that this program would really benefit lawyers, their practices, and the system,” Shear said.

LOMAS began operations in 1980 with a focus on conducting educational programs and on-site law office consultations.

LOMAS now promotes effective management techniques for both lawyers and support staff in a manner flexible enough to respond to the immediate demands of today’s ever-changing law office environment.

LOMAS’ goals all involve the principal objective of assisting attorneys in improving the management of their practices, including:

• To investigate, accumulate, and evaluate practice management information and technologies.

• To publish and distribute information and techniques relating to practice management.

• To increase awareness of professional liability and risk management procedures.

• To anticipate trends and problems in law office management and to advise the Bar’s leadership.

The Future
Equels joined the LOMAS staff in January 2000 after a 20-year career as a legal administrator with both large and small firms and as a private management consultant. With the retirement of longtime LOMAS Director J.R. Phelps in 2009, Equels was promoted to director. The program also is supported by practice management advisor Sullenberger, who has decades of experience in not only law firm administration but also technology systems management and training programs.

“As an administrator and then as a private consultant, I would frequently encourage attorneys and administrators to contact the LOMAS program for help with practice management, office management, marketing, budgeting, and personnel issues,” Equels said. “I was always surprised to discover how few Florida Bar members knew about this terrific member service. Today, we just keep working hard, as former PMAs have done in the past, to get the word out to members about what LOMAS has to offer.” 

LOMAS enters its fourth decade, its practice management advisors continue to operate by the original program concept of being “the ounce of prevention that prevents a costly pound of cure.”

This information was obtained from The Florida Bar News.

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 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.

The Use of and Rehabilitation at Formal Hearings at The Florida Board of Bar Examiners

On the Florida Bar Journal’s website, Charles A. Stampelos writes the following:

The scenario is this: You have graduated from college and have finished two years of law school. You worked to earn good grades with the expectation that you will graduate and become a member of The Florida Bar. You will be taking the bar examination in a year and are reviewing the bar application now.
As you study the lengthy application, your anxiety level soars for you are asked to reveal that you have misdemeanor convictions for burglary and theft, that you are in arrears on several credit cards and loans, and that you have numerous traffic violations, and your driver license has been suspended.

Stampelos goes on to say that you must advise the board of your mistakes and be absolutely candid in the explanation. A lack of truth and candor during the application process will land you in scalding water in the investigative and formal hearing process and possibly put you in another line of work.

Having disclosed these facts, you may expect the board to invite you to an investigative hearing. You are entitled to be represented by counsel or you may go alone. If money is a problem, and it usually is, at least consult with an attorney who has handled these cases. The investigative hearing is a serious matter. Treat it as such. It bears repeating: A lack of candor during the bar application process, including the investigative hearing, could lead to your not being recommended for admission.

After the investigative hearing, the board will make one of the following determinations:

(a) that [you] have] established [your] qualifications as to character and fitness;
(b) that a Consent Agreement be entered into with [you] in lieu of the filing of Specifications pertaining to drug, alcohol or psychological problems. In a Consent Agreement, the Board shall be authorized to recommend to the Court the admission of the applicant who has agreed to abide by specified terms and conditions upon admission to The Florida Bar;
(c) that further investigation into [your] character and fitness is warranted;
(d) that Specifications be filed charging [you] with matters which if proven would preclude a favorable finding by the Board.

Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-22.5.

Based on the results of the investigative hearing, the board decides to file specifications (the charges) and you desire to contest them. You must answer them under oath. If you do not answer, the specifications are deemed admitted. Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23, 3-23.1. Barring reaching a consent agreement as provided in Rule 3-22.5(b), you will proceed to a formal hearing. See Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23.2 for a discussion of the formal hearing process, including but not limited to the notion that the “technical rules of evidence” do not apply. Witnesses can be subpoenaed by you and the board’s counsel. Pursuant to its procedures, the board will give you a copy of any exculpatory material and statements given to the board by witnesses who will testify live at the formal hearing. You may also obtain copies of the board exhibits to be offered at the formal hearing and copies of any documents you furnished the board during the application process, and copies of documents third parties (with their consent) furnished the board. However, except as noted here and in the admission rules, you are not entitled to a copy of the board’s investigative file. See generally Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Interpretation of Article I, Section 14d of The Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, 581 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1991); Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 1-60-1-64 regarding the scope of confidentiality of the application process. 

Your formal hearing will be conducted before a quorum of the board which shall consist of not less than five members of the board and will not include any member who participated in the investigative hearing. This provision may be waived with your consent. Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23.2.

During the formal hearing, as a matter of practice, the board’s counsel goes first and places into evidence documentation which supports the specifications. Board counsel may call live witnesses. You may cross-examine. Then it is your turn. You can offer documentary evidence and call live witnesses. However, make no mistake, you are the focus of the formal hearing. The board must prove its specifications; you do not have to disprove them. Coleman v. Watts, 81 So. 2d 650, 655 (Fla. 1955). However, you have the burden to prove that you have good moral character and the requisite fitness to practice law in Florida.

The board, and necessarily the Florida Supreme Court, requires you to demonstrate present good moral character. Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 2-12. The court has adopted a rule to assist the board in making this determination:

3-12 Determination of Present Character. The Board shall determine whether the applicant or registrant has provided satisfactory evidence of good moral character. In addition to other factors in making this determination, the following factors should be considered in assigning weight and significance to prior conduct:

(a) age at the time of the conduct;
(b) recency of the conduct;
(c) reliability of the information concerning the conduct;
(d) seriousness of the conduct;
(e) factors underlying the conduct;
(f) cumulative effect of the conduct or information;
(g) evidence of rehabilitation;
(h) positive social contributions since the conduct;
(i) candor in the admissions process;
(j) materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations.

Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-12.

As you are having a problem with your prior misconduct, you should consider raising rehabilitation in your answer to the specifications and proving rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. The board considers several factors including unimpeachable character and moral standing in the community, good reputation for professional ability, where applicable; lack of malice and ill feeling toward those who by duty were compelled to bring about the disciplinary, judicial, administrative, or other proceeding; restitution of funds or property, where applicable; and “positive action” such as a person’s occupation, religion, or community or civic service. The rehabilitation rule is clear: “Merely showing that an individual is now living as and doing those things he or she should have done throughout life, although necessary to prove rehabilitation, does not prove that the individual has undertaken a useful and constructive place in society.” See Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13(a)-(g), for additional criteria.

Prior misconduct does not bar forever an applicant who has demonstrated good moral character. See, e.g., Florida Board of Bar Examiners re P.T.R., 662 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1995); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.C.A., 659 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1995); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re L.M.S., 647 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1994); Florida Bar Board Examiners re Kwasnick, 508 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1987); Application of V.M.F. for Admission to The Florida Bar, 491 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1986); In re Petition of Diez-Arguelles, 401 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 1981). It just may take some time and convincing.

The court has stated the test to be used to determine whether a person is of good moral character:

We must now determine two issues. First, are the facts in this case such that a reasonable man would have substantial doubts about the petitioner’s honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation? Second, is the conduct involved in this case rationally connected to the petitioner’s fitness to practice law?

Florida Bar Board Examiners re G.W.L., 364 So. 2d 454, 459 (Fla. 1978).

For example, in V.M.F., 491 So. 2d 1104, the applicant, upon advice of his attorney/father, did not disclose two drug arrests or the circumstances on his Florida Bar application. V.M.F. also lied at the investigative hearing. However, the court felt that “the delay in admission of over one and one-half years [was] an adequate price to pay for his reluctance to reveal every aspect of” his arrest. The court noted that if V.M.F. “had willingly revealed all the circumstances surrounding the Michigan arrests there is no doubt that the Board should have recommended his admission. See Petition of Diez-Arguelles, 401 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 1981).” V.M.F., 491 So. 2d at 1107.

In Florida Board of Bar Examiners re J.A.S., 658 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1995), the court admitted J.A.S. conditioned on his continued participation in the Florida Lawyers Assistance program.11 His problems with the legal system appeared to stem from his addiction problem. Nevertheless, J.A.S. was admitted notwithstanding a 1976 conviction for disorderly conduct, a 1980 arrest for simple assault that was subsequently dismissed, a 1983 conviction for resisting arrest, and a conviction for loitering with the intent to use a controlled substance (heroin). He was also dismissed from the police force based upon the heroin conviction. Id. at 515. J.A.S. also exhibited financial irresponsibility by defaulting on a student loan, which he subsequently repaid, and gave responses to the board and others that were false, misleading, or lacking in candor. Id. at 515-16. The court concluded that none of the incidents were recent, that J.A.S. sought and received professional help, and that J.A.S. had proven rehabilitation. Id.

J.A.S. was active in Narcotics Anonymous and served as a helpline volunteer, was a volunteer member in the guardian ad litem program, volunteered as a carpenter after Hurricane Andrew struck Miami and volunteered with the Dade County Bar Association, and “replaced his former anger with acceptance and now tries to do things for others.” Justice Harding with three justices concurring, found that J.A.S. “presented the same type of overwhelming evidence of rehabilitation that th[e] Court found dispositive in D.M.J.,” notwithstanding recognizing that the court is “required to and [does] give the Board’s findings great weight.” Id. at 517.

In Florida Bar Board Examiners re D.M.J., 586 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1991), the board found after the investigative and formal hearings, that five specifications had been proven and the applicant knowingly participated in the criminal conspiracy to import cocaine; gave false testimony at the investigative hearing as to his knowledge of the importation scheme; failed to disclose on an employment application that he was dismissed from the University of Mississippi for scholastic reasons and falsely stated his major at another university; falsely stated on his law school application the reasons he was dismissed from the University of Mississippi and failed to disclose he attended East Carolina University; and displayed financial irresponsibility by failing to satisfy a judgment against him in 1981 until 1986. The board concluded that specifications 3, 4, and 5 were not disqualifying in and of themselves, but that specification 1 “was disqualifying in and of itself or in conjunction with the remaining specifications.” Id. at 1050 n.1. Despite upholding “[t]he Board’s determination that [D.M.J.] knowingly participated in the drug conspiracy,” the court concluded D.M.J. provided sufficient evidence of rehabilitation and ordered his admission. Id. at 1050-51.

D.M.J. presented numerous character witnesses, whose testimony was “highly favorable and uncontroverted.” The favorable recommendations included the judge for whom he clerked, two Florida attorneys who knew him for many years, and an attorney for whom he previously clerked. Id. at 1050. Two former law school professors submitted affidavits attesting to his “outstanding legal ability, honesty, generosity, and integrity.” Witnesses also corroborated D.M.J.’s charitable work “over the past several years for the Civil Air Patrol and the Kiwanis Club.” Id. at 1051. The court further noted that the offense in question occurred more than 12 years ago and there was no indication of conduct which would warrant disqualification since that time. The court concluded that D.M.J. “demonstrated that he currently me[t] the standards of conduct and fitness . . . .” Id. (emphasis added).

In L.M.S., the court ordered admission notwithstanding the board’s negative recommendation. L.M.S., 647 So. 2d at 839. During L.M.S.’s final semester (fall of 1991) of law school, she was enrolled in a supervised research and writing course that required completion of a paper. She originally planned to sit for the General Bar Examination in February 1992, but postponed that sitting because of financial considerations. She did not complete her paper until February 1992 and had not received a grade on the paper when she sat for the general bar examination in July 1992. Her grades were impounded because she could not show she had completed her graduation requirements when she took the test.

“L.M.S. admits that she made an error in judgment in sitting for the July 1992 examination. She maintained that she honestly believed she was eligible to take the exam even though she had not received a grade for her paper and she had received two letters from her law school advising her that she might be ineligible to sit for the Bar exam because she had not completed her graduation requirements.” Id. (emphasis added).

Specifications were filed and the board found two specifications were proven, but not disqualifying. It found that five specifications were disqualifying because they demonstrated her lack of honesty, truthfulness, and candor. The board also found L.M.S.’s testimony was “unreasonable and unworthy of belief.” Id.

The board identified numerous problems L.M.S. had with candor before the board. They all emanated, however, from one basic issue: whether she was candid when she advised the board that she had completed the requirements for graduation when, in fact, she had not.
The court did not condone L.M.S.’s statements that were false, misleading, or lacking in candor, but found she should be admitted, assuming she passed the bar examination. She acknowledged her mistakes; her employers considered her dependable and hardworking; and she had “not engaged in any behavior similar to that which led to her taking the July 1992 exam.” Id. at 839. “[I]n light of L.M.S.’s overall record, it [was] not clear [to the Court] what further rehabilitation she could show.” Id.

In P.T.R., the applicant had been disbarred in Florida for stealing from a client and misleading the court. He was readmitted. The court discusses each of the rule rehabilitation criteria. The court felt that P.T.R.’s transgression was a single, isolated episode and that he proved rehabilitation by performing volunteer work for his homeowner’s association, donating blood (he had a rare type), service as treasurer, coach, or umpire for his son’s Little League team, traveling with his daughter to swim meets when she was younger, and teaching martial arts to children for free.

In M.C.A., the applicant was accused of cheating on a law school exam and sanctioned by the law school pursuant to a settlement agreement. She advised the board of the incident, but protested her innocence both before the law school and before the board. The board recommended denial of admission because she maintained she did not cheat on the exam. The court rejected this “Catch-22″ position. The court also concluded that she proved her “present fitness” to practice law. The incident occurred almost five years ago; she complied with the conditions of the settlement agreement entered into with the law school; she applied for and was readmitted to the law school; favorable letters of recommendation were submitted in her behalf; and “[s]everal of her professors wrote that the cheating incident was totally out of character for [her] and that they did not believe that she had in fact cheated.” Id. at 35. In light of her overall record, the court granted admission. The case is not so much one of rehabilitation as it is a case of successfully overcoming one isolated, yet serious, incident.

In contrast, in Florida Board of Bar Examiners re J.J.J., 682 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1996), a lawyer was suspended for three years in his home state which followed money laundering/tax convictions. He was reinstated and applied for admission in Florida. The court denied admission finding that his sporadic participation in a local service organization, active participation in local bar association, and pro bono legal service was not enough to establish rehabilitation in light of the serious misconduct.

W.H.V.D. was denied admission twice. Florida Board of Bar Examiners re W.H.V.D., 653 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1995). He was initially denied because of his conduct while he served as a trustee for a church and school stewardship fund during the mid-1970s. This conduct included making unauthorized loans while he was a trustee and engaging in unethical behavior such as conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty. He also demonstrated a lack of candor in dealing with the board. He reapplied and was required to prove rehabilitation. He failed to do so.

The board found and the court concluded that W.H.V.D. did not “fully appreciate either the seriousness of his past behavior or the consequences of his present behavior.” Id. at 388. Also, he did not take the “extra steps to show rehabilitation” since being denied admission the first time. Opening his house to migrants on two occasions and doing well at work were insufficient. The board noted in its report on rehabilitation that they would view favorably activities such as counseling or teaching young law students and young lawyers on ethical considerations. Id. at 388 n.1. The court was confident that he could demonstrate positive action showing rehabilitation in other ways as well. Id.

As a general rule, if the board does not recommend your admission after the formal hearing and your case is not ripe for a conditional admission, your ability to reapply for admission will be withheld for a specified period not to exceed two years. Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23.6(c). Following a formal hearing, and sometimes following an investigative hearing, the board has recommended that admission be withheld for one year where rehabilitation was shown but insufficient. Also, the court has authorized applicants to reapply for admission within one year, rather than wait the ususal two-year period. See, e.g, Florida Board of Bar Examiners re J.E.G.R., 720 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1998); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re N.W.R., 674 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1996); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re F.O.L., 646 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1994); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re B.H.A., 626 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1993).

If you face a formal hearing and have committed one or more acts of misconduct, rehabilitation may be at issue, but you have to assert and prove it. If you have to reapply for admission after a negative recommendation, including being unsuccessful in seeking review by the court, you must prove rehabilitation the next time through the system. In order to have any reasonable expectation of gaining admission, you must plan ahead and develop a plan and begin your rehabilitation now.
This very valuable information was written by Charles A. Stampelos and appears on the Florida Bar Journal’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 Importance of Character and Fitness When Applying to the Florida Bar

The following information was obtained from the Florida Board of Bar Examiners website. 

Proof of Character and Fitness.  When applying to the Florida Bar, all applicants shall produce satisfactory evidence of good moral character, an adequate knowledge of the standards and ideals of the profession, and proof that the applicant is otherwise fit to take the oath and perform the obligations and responsibilities of an attorney. The background investigation cannot be initiated without the completed Bar Application, Authorization and Release Form and appropriate fee. Persons beginning law school are encouraged to apply by the deadlines set forth in rule 2-23.1. Third-year law students including those who previously registered and those who did not file an early registration, are encouraged to file the applicable Bar Application forms at the beginning of their senior year. The following eligibility requirements apply:

  1. Persons must be 18 years of age or older to be admitted.
  2. Persons who have been disbarred from the practice of law or who have resigned pending disciplinary proceedings shall not be eligible to apply for a period of 5 years from the date of disbarment or 3 years from the date of resignation or such longer period as is set for readmission by the jurisdictional authority.
  3. Persons who have been suspended for disciplinary reasons from the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction shall not be eligible to apply until expiration of the period of suspension.
  4. Persons who have been convicted of a felony shall not be eligible to apply until the person’s civil rights have been restored.
  5. Persons who are serving a sentence of felony probation regardless of adjudication of guilt shall not be eligible to apply until termination of the period of probation.
  6. Applicants who have been refused a favorable recommendation through the filing of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that have not been reversed by the Supreme Court of Florida shall not be eligible to seek admission to The Florida Bar until 2 years after the date the board delivered its adverse findings or such longer period as set by the findings.

For further information relating to admission requirements refer to the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to The Bar (Rules).

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.

Checklist to File a Florida Bar Application (Student Registration not previously filed, first time taker of the examination)

This information was obtained from the floridabarexam website.  Always check to make sure there have not been any changes or updates to this information.  This is meant only as a guide.

This form is designed to assist you in gathering information, completing your Bar Application and preparing the material to submit a complete application. Click the various links to access information or printer-friendly forms. Applications submitted with accurate and complete item responses and all required supplemental documents can be processed more expeditiously. Processing will not be initiated on defective applications and an additional defective fee may be charged. A ticket of admission into the examination will not be issued if the complete application and required supplemental documents are not provided. If all required documents are not filed timely, late fees may be assessed.

STEP 1 – PRINT AND USE CHECKLIST

____1.Print this Checklist
____2.Check each item when completed to ensure that your Bar Application includes all necessary supplemental documents and information

STEP 2 – GATHER INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

Completion of this application will be time consuming. In order to complete your Bar Application efficiently online, it is suggested that you gather information and have it available when you complete the online questionnaire.

____1.Residence information including dates and complete addresses for the past 3 years, dates and city/state since your 16th birthday
____2.Names and addresses of all undergraduate and graduate schools you attended and dates of attendance
____3.Names of all law schools attended and dates of attendance
____4.Five personal references who have known you well within the past 5 years, including names and current mailing addresses.
____5.Employment information for the last 10 years or since your 16th birthday, whichever is shorter. You are required to provide employers’ names, addresses, dates employed, position, type of business, supervisor and reason for leaving. Include self-employment or association with any occupation, business, enterprise or profession, either part-time or full-time. Include employment as a law clerk; include positions in clinics, internships, externships, or other similar non-paid positions.
____6.Financial information about delinquent credit, defaulted credit, unfiled tax returns, checks returned for insufficient funds and delinquent student loans
____7.Information about arrests, charges or accusations (including traffic violations) reporting dates, law enforcement agency, explanation of event and final disposition. If your arrest records are sealed, you must petition the appropriate court to unseal those records.
____8.Information about all bar admission or registration applications filed in Florida or any other jurisdiction
____9.Transcripts from all undergraduate schools from which you received an undergraduate degree, transcripts from all law schools attended (except your current law school, if you are still attending), even if the credit was transferred to another school or is reflected on another school’s transcript, and transcripts from any post-secondary schools attended subsequent to law school. You should request that all transcripts be sent from each educational institution attended directly to the Board’s office and provide a copy of each request with your application.
____10.Fingerprints
All applicants for admission to The Florida Bar must have their fingerprints scanned for electronic submission to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and to the FBI by Integrated Biometric Technology (IBT). Instructions for this step are in the answer to How do I submit the required fingerprints? in our FAQ. Confirmation of your compliance with this step must be received by the board before processing of your application can begin.
____11.Certificate of Dean
Complete the top section and submit the Certificate of Dean to your law school dean after your graduation. If attending a Florida law school, do not provide the form to your school.

The following documents from other agencies may be needed, depending on your response to various items on the Bar Application.

____12.A copy of your DD-214, reflecting your character of service and re-entry code
____13.For lawsuits where you are personally named a defendant or counter-defendant, you are required to include an exact and complete copy of the complaint or other initial pleading, answer, counterclaim, if any, and the disposition of each action, or a letter from the court verifying that the documents are not available.
____14.Copies of bar applications or registrations filed in any other jurisdiction
____15.Certificates of Good Standing from each jurisdiction where you are admitted

STEP 3 – COMPLETE THE BAR APPLICATION ONLINE

When you have gathered the information above, you are ready to complete the online Bar Application. A high-speed Internet connection is recommended.

____1.Read the Introduction to the Online Bar Application.
____2.Create an Account. If you do not complete the online application within six months from the date you create your account, your account and all of the information you have entered will be deleted; you will have to start over by creating a new account.
____3.Log in to access the Main Menu of the Bar Application. It is best to answer the items in order.
____4.You may start and stop completion of the online Bar Application as necessary. To securely exit the program, return to the Main Menu, log out and close your browser. When returning to the program, access the Bar Application’s Main Menu from the “Resume Bar Application” link found on the left side of the Home page.
____5.Complete each item of the application until you have completed and saved each item as finished. Three columns of items are displayed, Not Started, Saved As Draft, and Saved As Finished.
____6.When all items are saved as finished on the Main Menu page, you will be offered instructions for printing a “Draft Version” of your Bar Application. Follow the on-screen instructions. When ready to proceed, click the “Draft Version” button. This will accumulate your individual item responses into a printer-friendly document and display it on your screen. Print the draft.
____7.Read and carefully review each item of the “Draft Version” of your application to assure that each item prints completely and correctly. Make individual item revisions or additions by clicking that item in the “Underway” column, reentering or correcting data and saving your work. You may print the draft as many times as necessary.
____8.When you are certain that your application is complete and accurate, return to the Main Menu page and follow the on-screen directions following the “Draft Version” button. Do not press the “Final Version” button without printing a draft and making corrections. You will not be able to make changes or additions to your Bar Application after clicking the “Final Version” button. When ready to proceed, click the “Final Version” button and your responses will be accumulated in a finalized printer-friendly document and displayed on your screen.
____9.Print two (2) copies of the “Final Version” of your Bar Application. You will need one copy to submit to the Board within six months of creating the final version and one copy for your records. Do not delay printing. The “Final Version” of your Bar Application will be removed from the Web Server 24 hours after creating the “Final Version”. If you do not print the “Final Version” during this 24-hour interval, you will have to create another account and re-enter all item data. The “Draft Version” of your Bar Application will not be accepted.
____10.Complete the handwriting sample in Section C at the end of your printed copy of the online Bar Application.
____11.Proceed to Section D of the Bar Application.
____12.When you have responded to all items, click the button, “Finalize My Application.” The program will accumulate your responses in a document and display it on the screen. Print the document.
____13.Complete the handwriting sample on the last page of Section D.
____14.Print and complete all supplemental forms in Step 4 below.
____15.Have all documents [Bar Application (Sections A-C), Bar Application (Section D), Authorization and Release, Financial Affidavit, etc.] notarized. The notary should require identification and place you under oath prior to requiring you to sign each document.
____16.Confirm that the notarization is properly executed (including that the notary properly indicates how you were identified, signs, dates, and affixes his or her stamp). Incorrect notarization will cause your application to be returned and delay initiation of the background investigation.

STEP 4 – PACKING LIST TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE BAR APPLICATION

As you package your application, check off each item below confirming that you have completed and included each required item.

____1.Bar Application (Sections A-C)
Completed and properly notarized. Be sure to keep a copy for your records.
____2.Bar Application (Section D)
Completed and properly notarized. Be sure to keep a copy for your records.
____3.Authorization and Release (PDF – 63k)
Three (3) originals, completed and properly notarized
____4.Affidavit of Compliance (PDF – 62k)
____5.Application fee
Computed using the Application Fee Worksheet (PDF – 46k). Clip the check to the front page of the Bar Application.
____6.Fingerprints
All applicants for admission to The Florida Bar must have their fingerprints scanned for electronic submission to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and to the FBI by Integrated Biometric Technology (IBT). Instructions for this step are in the answer to How do I submit the required fingerprints? in our FAQ. Confirmation of your compliance with this step must be received by the board before processing of your application can begin.
____7.2″ x 2″ passport photograph
Write your name on the back and staple to the Examination Application (if filed concurrently) or to the first page of the Bar Application. If previously filed with Examination Application, do not resubmit.
____8.Proof of citizenship

  • If you are a citizen of the United States, submit with your Bar Application a certified copy of your birth certificate, or provide a photocopy of your certificate of naturalization, or certificate of citizenship for submission to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for verification of authenticity.
  • If you are not a citizen of the United States, provide a photocopy of the immigration document that documents your status for submission to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for verification of authenticity.
  • For more information on how to obtain documents to prove citizenship or immigration status, read Must I provide documentation of my U.S. citizenship or immigration status? in our FAQ.

All of the following as applicable:

____9.Copies of letters of request for undergraduate and graduate transcripts
____10.Documentation of military service (DD-214, Report of Separation, or equivalent)
____11.Copies of litigation documents
____12.A copy of the judge’s signed order to unseal arrest records
____13.Copies of letters to doctors (as required by Items 25-26)
____14.Copies of bar applications from other jurisdictions
____15.Certificates of Good Standing
____16.Financial Affidavit (PDF – 442k)
This form should be completed if required by a response to an item on the Bar Application.

Address your package to the Florida Board of Bar Examiners and mail within six months of creating the final version.

U.S. Postal Service:
1891 Eider Court
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1750		                FED EX or other delivery service:
1891 Eider Court
Tallahassee, FL 32308

Reporting Changes to the Bar Application

Your Bar Application is a continuing application and you have an obligation to keep the responses to all items current and complete by the filing of timely amendments. Updates to your Bar Application should be made by using the Amendment form (PDF – 72k)

Again, this is to be used as a guide only, alway check with the Florida Bar to make sure you comply with all of the specifics.

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 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.