Connect with us

Bankruptcy

Florida Bar versus Criminal Lawyer Allan Campbell’s Fictitiousness

In the interim, Lawyer Allan Campbell is now working for Governor Ron DeSantis’s Florida Department of Children and Families.

Published

on

LIF COMMENTARY AND UPDATE (MAY 20, 2022)

A couple of tweets with the words Allan Campbell to Gov. Ron ‘The Unwanted Dictator’ Desantis and two week after publishing this article, the Fl. Supreme Court has suspended Campbell for 3 years, and as an aside, Fl. lawyer Christopher Lim for one year.

We’ll be commenting on the suspensions for Campbell and Lim as we release the other articles, which perhaps was why Florida acted swiftly. It’s certainly an improvement and at LIF we acknowledge that advancement.

However, as par for the course, y’all reverse on the good work by refusing to publish the suspension order on the Florida Bar member’s profile and claiming there is no disciplinary documents available – which is clearly a falsehood.

Update; May 31: we’ve just rolled round to this post as we prepare to release related articles in this series and note the Fl. Bar have finally updated the disciplinary page for suspended Bar member Allan Campbell.

Supreme Court of Florida

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2022

CASE NO.: SC21-1495
Lower Tribunal No(s).:
2019-30,317 (5B); 2019-30,392 (5B);
2019-30,608 (5B); 2019-30,726 (5B);
2020-30,084 (5B); 2020-30,781 (5B)

THE FLORIDA BAR vs. ALLAN CAMPBELL

Complainant(s)                                   Respondent(s)

The uncontested report of the referee is approved and respondent is suspended from the practice of law for three years, effective thirty days from the date of this order so that respondent can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients.

If respondent notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately.

Respondent shall fully comply with Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-5.1(h).

Respondent shall also fully comply with Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-6.1, if applicable.

In addition, respondent shall accept no new business from the date this order is filed until he is reinstated.

Respondent is further directed to attend The Florida Bar’s Ethics School under the terms and conditions set forth in the report and consent judgment.

Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Allan Campbell in the amount of $11,105.46, for which sum let execution issue.

Not final until time expires to file motion for rehearing, and if filed, determined. The filing of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date of this suspension.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

A True Copy Test:

as Served:

PATRICK JOHN MCGINLEY LAURA N. GRYB
HON. ALICIA WASHINGTON, JUDGE PATRICIA ANN TORO SAVITZ

This is an evolving article, bookmark for updates as it forms part of a series of articles by LIF in a complex and lengthy scheme.

What is known is that if the courts had sentenced Roderic ‘Roddy’ Boling to the 25 years the Department of Justice suggest could have been applied, rather than a slap on the wrist of 60 months probation with 8 months in a halfway house, lawyer Allan Campbell would never have met Roddy Boling, a relationship which has wreaked havoc in Florida.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THE FLORIDA BAR,

Complainant,

v.

ALLAN CAMPBELL,

Respondent.

Supreme Court Case No. SC-
The Florida Bar File Nos.

2019-30,317 (5B);
2019-30,392 (5B);
2019-30,726 (5B);
2020-30,084 (5B);
2019-30,608 (5B);
2020-30,781 (5B)

COMPLAINT

Oct 29, 2021

The Florida Bar, complainant, files this Complaint against Allan Campbell, respondent, pursuant to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and alleges:

THE CAST OF KEY PLAYERS

LAWYERS

ALLAN CAMPBELL, [FORMALLY CHARGED]

ANDREA ROEBUCK [SUSPENDED WITH CONDITIONS]

[ADMONISHED] R. CHRISTOPHER A. LIM [ HAS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE TENDENCIES]

STAFFORD SHEALY [PERMANENTLY RETIRED]

KELLEY BOSECKER [PERMANENTLY DISBARRED ATTORNEY]

DANIEL BRODERSON [DISCIPLINARY REVOCATION]

KATHLEEN ACHILLE

PATRICK THOMPSON [PUBLIC REPRIMAND]

NON-LAWYERS

WILLIAM PICKARD,

RODDY BOLING – ANNA BOLING – KATIE BOLING

WILLIAM HOWELL

DARRIN LAVINE – LINA OLARTE-LAVINE

AND

KEY ENTITIES

ALLAN CAMPBELL ATTORNEY AT LAW LLC FICTITIOUSLY TRADING AS ‘BEST DEFENSE LAW’ [CAMPBELL],

BEST DEFENSE LAW, P.A. [ROEBUCK]

ORLANDO VENTURES [HOWELL],

TITANS RESERVE GROUP PMA [LAVINE],

THE RESILIENT GROUP INC., OTHERWISE KNOWN AS RESILIENT GROUP PMA. [BOLING]

TIMESHARE LAWYERS INC. / TIMESHARE LAWYERS, P.A.

CAMPBELL'S LOGO

“The Key to Your Criminal Defense”

1. Respondent is and was at all times mentioned herein a member of The Florida Bar, admitted on September 21, 1990, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.

2. Respondent resided in Seminole County, Florida, and practiced law in Orange and Seminole Counties, Florida, at all times material.

3. The Fifth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee “B” found probable cause to file this complaint pursuant to Rule 3-7.4, of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and this complaint has been approved by the presiding member of that committee.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

4. In January 2017, respondent created a Florida business entity named Allan Campbell Attorney at Law LLC.

The entity was registered to do business in the State of Florida under the fictitious name of Best Defense Law.

5. Respondent was a sole practitioner and wanted to set up a law office with his associate, William Glenn Pickard, a nonlawyer, to expand his practice.

6. Respondent agreed that one of Pickard’s responsibilities as office manager of Best Defense Law was to bring in business for the firm.

7. Pickard introduced respondent to Roderic Boling, a nonlawyer, who wanted to be a silent investor in Best Defense Law.

8. Boling provided office space to Best Defense Law in the same building where Boling maintained an office.

9. Boling was associated with William Howell, a nonlawyer who owned Orlando Ventures and several other affiliated businesses that were involved in timeshare divestment.

10. Boling and Howell provided financial assistance to get Best Defense Law’s office up and running.

11. Howell’s businesses solicited timeshare owners to hire his businesses to divest their timeshare interests.

12. Howell also purchased timeshare divestment cases from other timeshare exit companies, acquiring those contracts without the clients’ knowledge or consent.

13. Howell and Boling approached respondent about taking over their timeshare divestment cases, and respondent accepted.

14. Howell was seeking a new law firm to handle the matters after having severed his relationship with Timeshare Lawyers, Inc/Timeshare Lawyers, P.A.

15. Respondent had the timeshare clients execute limited powers of attorney authorizing respondent to negotiate on behalf of the clients with the respective time share resorts or time share companies.

16. None of Howell’s timeshare divestment companies were registered lawyer referral services in accordance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

17. Respondent delegated virtually all of the work on the timeshare cases to case managers, who were nonlawyers, and exercised no meaningful supervision over them.

18. Howell and/or Boling provided the case managers to handle the timeshare divestment work and exercised ultimate control over them.

19. Respondent admitted that he did not talk to all of the timeshare customers.

20. The case managers negotiated with the timeshare resorts, usually by letter or phone.

21. The case managers used form letters and affixed respondent’s signature with a stamp, with respondent’s knowledge and consent.

22. The timeshare owners and resorts were located nationwide, and, in some instances, resorts were located in foreign countries.

23. Respondent became aware that Howell had sent out solicitations using his name and Best Defense Law without his knowledge.

24. Respondent also learned that at least some of the timeshare clients had paid more money to Howell’s businesses than respondent was being paid to work on their cases.

25. Respondent was paid $500.00 per timeshare case by Howell and/or Boling and became aware that at least one timeshare customer paid Howell’s business $2,400.00.

26. In late 2017, respondent confronted Howell about the misleading direct solicitation and his concerns about fee sharing.

27. However, respondent continued to work for Howell and/or Boling representing the timeshare cases that they had until approximately March 2018.

28. In late 2017, Howell and Boling again came to respondent to start doing foreclosure defense and bankruptcy cases.

29. Respondent testified that he made it clear he was not comfortable doing foreclosure defense cases but that he wanted to learn bankruptcy.

30. They all agreed that they would bring on two attorneys, Andrea Roebuck and R. Christopher A. Lim, to do the foreclosure defense cases.

31. Roebuck and Lim were given office space in the same building as Best Defense Law and where Boling maintained an office.

32. At the time they associated with Best Defense Law in or around November 2017, Roebuck and Lim were handling foreclosure defense cases for a private member association, Titans Reserve Group PMA, operated by Darrin Lavine, a nonlawyer.

33. Around the time that Roebuck and Lim associated with Best Defense Law, Lavine ceased operations of Titans Reserve Group PMA and became involved with The Resilient Group Inc., often referred to as Resilient Group PMA, a corporation in which Boling served as President of Trustees.

34. Lavine referred members of Titans Reserve Group PMA to Resilient Group.

35. Best Defense Law took foreclosure defense cases from members of Resilient Group.

36. Resilient Group was a private member association that focused on defending foreclosure cases by claiming the mortgage notes were fraudulent.

37. Resilient Group purported to have a scientific process of examining notes to determine whether they were original or re-created.

38. Resilient Group offered its members pro se support, such as motions and legal research.

39. The website refers to its experienced team of foreclosure lawyers.

40. Resilient Group accepted payments from its members for legal services and utilized Best Defense Law to provide those services.

Members were not permitted to choose which attorney represented them.

41. Members paid Resilient Group an initial fee of $1,000.00 per property and $600.00 per month per property until the foreclosure case was completed.

42. Neither Resilient Group PMA nor The Resilient Group, Inc., were registered lawyer referral services in accordance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

43. When Roebuck and Lim began working with Best Defense Law, it was decided that all cases would be filed with the courts using respondent’s name and e-filing credentials.

44. Respondent’s password for both state and federal court e-portal filing systems were available to office staff to allow office staff to file documents on his behalf.

45. In foreclosure cases, after respondent filed his notice of appearance or other document in a case, Lim and/or Roebuck would handle the case going forward.

46. Further, it was agreed that Lim would assist respondent in becoming competent to handle bankruptcy cases.

47. Because respondent continued his full-time [criminal] court-appointed work he was not present in the office of Best Defense Law on a daily basis.

48. Respondent delegated all handling of the law firm’s finances to Pickard without exercising meaningful supervision and relied on Pickard to handle all agreements with Boling regarding the loan that Boling made to fund Best Defense Law.

For instance, respondent was not completely aware of who he was paying as employees of the firm or whether Best Defense Law was repaying the initial loan it received from Boling.

49. Respondent also relied heavily on Pickard for the day-to-day operations of the firm, including to bring pleadings to be filed to respondent’s attention.

50. In December 2017, Pickard abruptly left Best Defense Law after a confrontation with Boling.

51. Boling exercised considerable influence over the operation of Best Defense Law prior to Pickard’s departure.

52. Boling exerted increasing control over the operations and employees of Best Defense Law and respondent after Pickard’s departure.

53. After Pickard’s departure, Boling installed a new office manager Danny Johnson, who reported to Boling rather than to respondent.

54. Boling then offered respondent a salary increase as an incentive to prevent respondent’s departure from Best Defense Law.

55. Respondent testified that due to his discomfort with the increasingly hostile work environment, he spent less time at the Best Defense Law office, further exacerbating the issue with a nonlawyer controlling and directing a law firm without any supervision.

56. The employees of Best Defense Law, including the case managers and paralegals, took direction from Boling rather than from respondent.

57. The manner in which cases were managed provided Boling with access to attorney-client privileged information.

58. Boling routinely was included in law firm meetings where client matters were discussed, including attorney-client privileged information.

59. Boling routinely reviewed respondent’s letters, discarding them if the language was not to Boling’s liking, and directed the staff to send out a new version of the letters that Boling authored under respondent’s name.

60. Respondent testified that he was told by staff that if clients complained about the quality of their legal representation, Boling handled those communications and advised those clients that respondent had 30 years of legal experience.

61. Respondent testified that he discovered in late 2017 that some foreclosure filings were made under his name and with his filing credentials without his prior knowledge or consent.

62. Respondent further testified that he confronted Roebuck and Lim about the unauthorized filings and directed them to cease using his e- filing credentials for the foreclosure cases.

63. Respondent acknowledged that he had no proof that either Roebuck or Lim were responsible for the filings rather than the nonlawyer staff who also had access to respondent’s e-filing credentials.

64. The calendar and tickler system for Best Defense Law was created by Roebuck to automatically notify the nonlawyer staff of filing deadlines.

65. The staff routinely drafted and filed documents using respondent’s signature and filing credentials without supervision.

66. In or around March 2018, after a confrontation with Boling over respondent’s growing concern about the manner in which Best Defense Law was being operated, Boling banned respondent from re-entering the office of Best Defense Law and told respondent he was changing the locks.

67. With respondent’s abrupt departure, Boling assumed virtually all control over the operations of respondent’s law firm.

68. Due to concerns that respondent might leave Best Defense Law, Roebuck incorporated the similarly named law firm of Best Defense Law, P.A. on December 28, 2017.

69. The name of the new law firm was dictated by Boling, who desired that the clients not become aware of the change in the law firm.

70. Best Defense Law, P. A., became operational after respondent’s departure.

71. Because respondent’s name was on pleadings in some of the foreclosure defense and bankruptcy cases, respondent continued receiving copies of filings from the court in those cases after he left Best Defense Law.

72. If respondent perceived that the foreclosure cases were being actively litigated, respondent took no action to withdraw and permitted the court records to reflect him as counsel of record.

73. In cases where respondent perceived that Roebuck and/or Lim were not engaged with the clients or that the case was not being actively litigated, respondent filed a motion to withdraw and noticed the clients.

74. However, respondent did not set his motions for hearing or take the necessary steps to ensure he had been removed from the cases.

75. On the occasions when respondent was contacted by opposing counsel in a foreclosure case, respondent directed the attorney to Roebuck or Lim.

76. In one instance, opposing counsel refused to contact Roebuck because respondent was the attorney of record and informed respondent that she was seeking sanctions for having to defend a frivolous matter.

77. In response, respondent filed a dismissal instead of a motion seeking permission to withdraw from the case without consulting with the client prior to filing the motion for dismissal.

78. On March 29, 2018, respondent filed for an emergency injunction against Best Defense Law, of which he was the sole owner, officer, manager, and attorney of record, to stop the day-to day operations until he could bring all actions under his direct control.

79. The motion was denied on April 4, 2018, and a notice of lack of prosecution was entered in the case on February 21, 2019.

80. Respondent’s lack of control over his law firm enabled Boling and Howell to use Best Defense Law to achieve their own business objectives, all of which, if engaged in by an attorney, would be a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2019-30,317 (5B)

The Florida Bar re-alleges paragraphs 4 through 80 as if set forth fully herein and further alleges:

81. Beginning in or around August 2016, Thousand Hills Golf Resort, located in Missouri, began receiving letters from attorney Patrick Thompson of Timeshare Lawyers regarding Donald and Margaret Donovan, who allegedly owned a timeshare at the resort.

82. Daniel C. Ruda, president of Thousand Hills Golf Resort, notified Thompson repeatedly that Thompson was addressing the wrong entity as the resort did not engage in the timeshare business and the Donovans did not own a unit at this resort. Thompson failed to correct the misidentification issue, resulting in Ruda issuing a cease a desist letter to Timeshare Lawyers.

83. After Howell transferred the Donovan case to respondent’s Best Defense Law, respondent wrote to Thousand Hills Golf Resort on January 15, 2018, reasserting the same allegations on behalf of the same clients that were previously proclaimed by Thompson in 2016.

84. Then in May 2018, a letter was sent to Thousand Hills Golf Resort with Roebuck’s signature on it, stating that Best Defense has been unable to successfully attain the resort’s cooperation on behalf of the Donovans and their alleged timeshare.

85. Ruda repeatedly advised each of the ensuing attorneys by telephone, postal letter, fax, and email that Thousand Hills Golf Resort was a whole-ownership resort with no timeshare option available and had no connection with the Donovans.

86. In June 2018, Ruda wrote a letter to respondent to cease and desist from contacting the resort to avoid legal action against Best Defense Law, the Donovans, and all others associated with this claim.

87. Ruda again advised that more accurate research by respondent’s office should be conducted and that this could be considered as defamation of his company name.

88. At the time of the June 2018 letter from Ruda, respondent had left Best Defense Law, without notice, and Andrea Marie Roebuck had assumed responsibility for the timeshare cases. Ruda was not provided with notice of the change in attorneys or law firms.

89. Despite Ruda’s June 2018 letter, other attorneys associated with Howell, who handled the timeshare cases after respondent’s departure, continued sending correspondence to the resort on behalf of the non-existent owners demanding relief.

90. Respondent’s lack of supervision of his case managers resulted in respondent not being made aware of the Donovans’ competence, understanding or their wishes as to the legal services being provided, including disclosure of their health conditions.

91. The Donovans’ timeshare divestment case was purchased by Howell’s company and eventually assigned to Best Defense Law years after the Donovans started the timeshare divestment process.

92. Respondent was not aware of Ruda’s cease and desist letters.

93. Respondent never communicated with the Donovans and was not aware of their existence as his clients.

94. Because respondent had no communication with the Donovans, he was not aware whether they still required divestment services, whether they were competent, whether the information provided was accurate, or whether they were still alive, given that his letter indicated that they were experiencing life-threatening medical issues.

95. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:

(a) 3-4.3 (1993) The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney’s relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.

(b) 3-4.3 (2018) The standards of professional conduct required of members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline are not all-inclusive nor is the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance of the act of misconduct. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.

(c) 4-1.1 A lawyer must provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

(d) 4-1.4 (a) Informing Client of Status of Representation. A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in terminology, is required by these rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. (b) Duty to Explain Matters to Client. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

(e) 4-1.5(a) (2012, 2018) An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost, or a fee generated by employment that was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

(f) 4-1.6(a) A lawyer must not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent.

(g) 4-1.6(e) A lawyer must make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.

(h) 4-1.8(f) (2010) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

(i) 4-1.8(f) (2018) A lawyer is prohibited from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client- lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

(j) 4-5.3 (a) A person who uses the title of paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term when offering or providing services to the public must work for or under the direction or supervision of a lawyer or law firm. (b) With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer or an authorized business entity as defined elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: (1) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a lawyer is responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer: (A) orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (B) is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. (c) Although paralegals or legal assistants may perform the duties delegated to them by the lawyer without the presence or active involvement of the lawyer, the lawyer must review and be responsible for the work product of the paralegals or legal assistants.

(k) 4-5.4(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to 1 or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation that fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; (3) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, in accordance with the provisions of rule 4- 1.17, pay to the estate or other legally authorized representative of that lawyer the agreed upon purchase price; (4) bonuses may be paid to nonlawyer employees for work performed, and may be based on their extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specified time period. Bonus payments shall not be based on cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm by the actions of the nonlawyer. A lawyer shall not provide a bonus payment that is calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer or law firm; and (5) a lawyer may share court-awarded fees with a nonprofit, pro bono legal services organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.

(l) 4-5.4(c) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

(m) 4-5.4(d) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

(n) 4-5.4(e) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a business entity authorized to practice law for a profit if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; or (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

(o) 4-5.5(a) A lawyer may not practice law in a jurisdiction other than the lawyer’s home state, in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in the lawyer’s home state or assist another in doing so.

(p) 4-5.7 (a) A lawyer who provides nonlegal services to a recipient that are not distinct from legal services provided to that recipient is subject to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar with respect to the provision of both legal and nonlegal services. (b) A lawyer who provides nonlegal services to a recipient that are distinct from any legal services provided to the recipient is subject to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar with respect to the nonlegal services if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship. (c) A lawyer who is an owner, controlling party, employee, agent, or otherwise is affiliated with an entity providing nonlegal services to a recipient is subject to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar with respect to the nonlegal services if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship.

(q) 4-7.18(a) (2013) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient and includes any written form of communication, including any electronic mail communication, directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4–7.11 through 4–7.17 of these rules.
(2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

(r) 4-7.18(a) (2018) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit in person, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit in person on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, by electronic means that include realtime communication face-to-face such as video telephone or video conference, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient that does not meet the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.17 of these rules. (2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

(s) 4-7.22 (2013) (a) A lawyer may not accept referrals from a lawyer referral service, and it is a violation of these Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to do so, unless the service: (1) engages in no communication with the public and in no direct contact with prospective clients in a manner that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if the communication or contact were made by the lawyer; (2) receives no fee or charge that constitutes a division or sharing of fees, unless the service is a not-for-profit service approved by The Florida Bar pursuant to chapter 8 of these rules; (3) refers clients only to persons lawfully permitted to practice law in Florida when the services to be rendered constitute the practice of law in Florida; (4) carries or requires each lawyer participating in the service to carry professional liability insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 per claim or occurrence; (5) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names and Florida bar membership numbers of all lawyers participating in the service; (6) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names of all persons authorized to act on behalf of the service; (7) responds in writing, within 15 days, to any official inquiry by bar counsel when bar counsel is seeking information described in this subdivision or conducting an investigation into the conduct of the service or a lawyer who accepts referrals from the service; (8) neither represents nor implies to the public that the service is endorsed or approved by The Florida Bar, unless the service is subject to chapter 8 of these rules; (9) uses its actual legal name or a registered fictitious name in all communications with the public; (10) affirmatively states in all advertisements that it is a lawyer referral service; and (11) affirmatively states in all advertisements that lawyers who accept referrals from it pay to participate in the lawyer referral service. (b) A lawyer who accepts referrals from a lawyer referral service is responsible for ensuring that any advertisements or written communications used by the service comply with the requirements of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, including the provisions of this subchapter. (c) A “lawyer referral service” is: (1) any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity that receives a fee or charge for referring or causing the direct or indirect referral of a potential client to a lawyer drawn from a specific group or panel of lawyers; or (2) any group or pooled advertising program operated by any person,group of persons, association, organization, or entity wherein the legal services advertisements utilize a common telephone number or website and potential clients are then referred only to lawyers or law firms participating in the group or pooled advertising program. A pro bono referral program, in which the participating lawyers do not pay a fee or charge of any kind to receive referrals or to belong to the referral panel, and are undertaking the referred matters without expectation of remuneration, is not a lawyer referral service within the definition of this rule.

(t) 4-8.4(a) A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.

(u) 4-8.4(c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

(v) 4-8.6(b) No authorized business entity may engage in the practice of law in the state of Florida or render advice under or interpretations of Florida law except through officers, directors, partners, managers, agents, or employees who are qualified to render legal services in this state.

(w) 4-8.6(c) No person may serve as a partner, manager, director or executive officer of an authorized business entity that is engaged in the practice of law in Florida unless such person is legally qualified to render legal services in this state. For purposes of this rule the term “executive officer” includes the president, vice-president, or any other officer who performs a policy-making function.

(x) 4-8.6(d) A lawyer who, while acting as a shareholder, member, officer, director, partner, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee of an authorized business entity and engaged in the practice of law in Florida, violates or sanctions the violation of the authorized business entity statutes or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar will be subject to disciplinary action.

THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2019-30,392 (5B)

The Florida Bar re-alleges paragraphs 4 through 80 as if set forth fully herein and further alleges:

96. On or about May 31, 2017, Joseph L. Cobb and his wife, residents of Louisiana, entered into a contract with respondent and Best Defense Law to provide legal services with respect to divesting the Cobbs’ interest in a Wyndham Resorts timeshare property located in Florida.

The Cobbs also executed a Limited and Specific Power of Attorney with respondent.

The contract stated that Timeshare Lawyer Services was paying all fees on behalf of the Cobbs.

97. In support of their hardship claim, the Cobbs provided respondent with confidential medical information.

98. Respondent permitted a situation to exist whereby the Cobbs’ confidential health information was available to third parties.

99. Cobb paid $2,400.00 for this service.

100. Best Defense Law wrote only one letter to Wyndham Resorts during a twenty-month period.

101. Virtually all communication from Best Defense Law was from nonlawyers over whom respondent exercised little meaningful supervision.

102. By November 2018, it appeared to the Cobbs that Best Defense Law had ceased operations and no refund of the unearned fees could be obtained.

103. According to respondent, the fee paid by the Cobbs was not made to him or Best Defense Law, but rather to a third-party timeshare exit company that referred timeshare owners to Best Defense Law.

104. Best Defense Law was paid a flat fee for each referral.

105. Respondent left Best Defense Law in March 2018.

106. Respondent explained that the client files remain the property of the various third parties who made the referrals to Best Defense Law. As a result, respondent had no access to the Cobbs’ file.

107. By reason of the forgoing, respondent has violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:

a. 3-4.3 (1993) The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney’s relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.

b. 3-4.3 (2018) The standards of professional conduct required of members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline are not all-inclusive nor is the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance of the act of misconduct. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.

c. 4-1.1 A lawyer must provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

d. 4-1.4 (a) Informing Client of Status of Representation. A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in terminology, is required by these rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. (b) Duty to Explain Matters to Client. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

e. 4-1.5(a) (2012, 2018) An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost, or a fee generated by employment that was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

f. 4-1.6(a) A lawyer must not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent.

g. 4-1.6(e) A lawyer must make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.

h. 4-1.8(f) (2010) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

i. 4-1.8(f) (2018) A lawyer is prohibited from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client- lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

j. 4-5.3 (a) A person who uses the title of paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term when offering or providing services to the public must work for or under the direction or supervision of a lawyer or law firm. (b) With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer or an authorized business entity as defined elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: (1) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a lawyer is responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer: (A) orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (B) is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. (c) Although paralegals or legal assistants may perform the duties delegated to them by the lawyer without the presence or active involvement of the lawyer, the lawyer must review and be responsible for the work product of the paralegals or legal assistants.

k. 4-5.4(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to 1 or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation that fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; (3) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, in accordance with the provisions of rule 4- 1.17, pay to the estate or other legally authorized representative of that lawyer the agreed upon purchase price; (4) bonuses may be paid to nonlawyer employees for work performed, and may be based on their extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specified time period. Bonus payments shall not be based on cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm by the actions of the nonlawyer. A lawyer shall not provide a bonus payment that is calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer or law firm; and (5) a lawyer may share court-awarded fees with a nonprofit, pro bono legal services organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.

l. 4-5.4(c) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

m. 4-5.4(d) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

n. 4-5.4(e) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a business entity authorized to practice law for a profit if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; or (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

o. 4-5.5(a) A lawyer may not practice law in a jurisdiction other than the lawyer’s home state, in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in the lawyer’s home state or assist another in doing so.

p. 4-5.7 (a) A lawyer who provides nonlegal services to a recipient that are not distinct from legal services provided to that recipient is subject to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar with respect to the provision of both legal and nonlegal services. (b) A lawyer who provides nonlegal services to a recipient that are distinct from any legal services provided to the recipient is subject to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar with respect to the nonlegal services if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship. (c) A lawyer who is an owner, controlling party, employee, agent, or otherwise is affiliated with an entity providing nonlegal services to a recipient is subject to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar with respect to the nonlegal services if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship.

q. 4-7.18(a) (2013) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient and includes any written form of communication, including any electronic mail communication, directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4–7.11 through 4–7.17 of these rules.
(2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

r. 4-7.18(a) (2018) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit in person, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit in person on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, by electronic means that include realtime communication face-to-face such as video telephone or video conference, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient that does not meet the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.17 of these rules. (2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

s. 4-7.22 (2013) (a) A lawyer may not accept referrals from a lawyer referral service, and it is a violation of these Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to do so, unless the service: (1) engages in no communication with the public and in no direct contact with prospective clients in a manner that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if the communication or contact were made by the lawyer; (2) receives no fee or charge that constitutes a division or sharing of fees, unless the service is a not-for-profit service approved by The Florida Bar pursuant to chapter 8 of these rules; (3) refers clients only to persons lawfully permitted to practice law in Florida when the services to be rendered constitute the practice of law in Florida; (4) carries or requires each lawyer participating in the service to carry professional liability insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 per claim or occurrence; (5) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names and Florida bar membership numbers of all lawyers participating in the service; (6) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names of all persons authorized to act on behalf of the service; (7) responds in writing, within 15 days, to any official inquiry by bar counsel when bar counsel is seeking information described in this subdivision or conducting an investigation into the conduct of the service or a lawyer who accepts referrals from the service; (8) neither represents nor implies to the public that the service is endorsed or approved by The Florida Bar, unless the service is subject to chapter 8 of these rules; (9) uses its actual legal name or a registered fictitious name in all communications with the public; (10) affirmatively states in all advertisements that it is a lawyer referral service; and (11) affirmatively states in all advertisements that lawyers who accept referrals from it pay to participate in the lawyer referral service. (b) A lawyer who accepts referrals from a lawyer referral service is responsible for ensuring that any advertisements or written communications used by the service comply with the requirements of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, including the provisions of this subchapter. (c) A “lawyer referral service” is: (1) any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity that receives a fee or charge for referring or causing the direct or indirect referral of a potential client to a lawyer drawn from a specific group or panel of lawyers; or (2) any group or pooled advertising program operated by any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity wherein the legal services advertisements utilize a common telephone number or website and potential clients are then referred only to lawyers or law firms participating in the group or pooled advertising program. A pro bono referral program, in which the participating lawyers do not pay a fee or charge of any kind to receive referrals or to belong to the referral panel, and are undertaking the referred matters without expectation of remuneration, is not a lawyer referral service within the definition of this rule.

t. 4-8.4(a) A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.

u. 4-8.4(c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

v. 4-8.6(b) No authorized business entity may engage in the practice of law in the state of Florida or render advice under or interpretations of Florida law except through officers, directors, partners, managers, agents, or employees who are qualified to render legal services in this state.

w. 4-8.6(c) No person may serve as a partner, manager, director or executive officer of an authorized business entity that is engaged in the practice of law in Florida unless such person is legally qualified to render legal services in this state. For purposes of this rule the term “executive officer” includes the president, vice-president, or any other officer who performs a policy-making function.

x. 4-8.6(d) A lawyer who, while acting as a shareholder, member, officer, director, partner, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee of an authorized business entity and engaged in the practice of law in Florida, violates or sanctions the violation of the authorized business entity statutes or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar will be subject to disciplinary action.

THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2019-30,608 (5B)

The Florida Bar re-alleges paragraphs 4 through 80 as if set forth fully herein and further alleges:

108. Joseph and Jodell Altier were members of Resilient Group PMA.

109. The Altiers had foreclosure and bankruptcy cases.

110. In Jodell Altier v. Goshen Mortgage, LLC, Case Number 6:18- cv-00438-JA, Jodell Altier sought an appeal of an order entered by the bankruptcy court in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.

111. The notice of appeal was filed on March 7, 2018, using respondent’s e-filing credentials and his signature was affixed to the pleading.

112. The notice of appeal was filed around the time that respondent’s association with Boling ended and he left Best Defense Law.

113. On or about July 7, 2018, Jodell Altier filed a pro se response to a motion to dismiss and motion for additional time to file an appeal prepared by Kelley Andrea Bosecker, a disbarred attorney, associated with Lavine, Roebuck, and Lim.

114. Goshen Mortgage, LLC filed a response in opposition stating that respondent did not know or represent Jodell Altier based on a telephone call opposing counsel received from respondent.

115. On September 7, 2018, the court held a status conference hearing in the matter. Roebuck appeared as counsel for Jodell Altier after being contacted by either Boling and/or Lavine.

116. When the issue was raised in court that respondent was not Jodell Altier’s attorney and that the notice of appeal may have been fraudulently filed in his name, the court ordered an evidentiary hearing in an attempt to discover the truth of the matter.

117. In addition, the parties conducted discovery and held depositions on the matter.

118. On January 8, 2019, Roebuck and attorney Stafford Shealy appeared at the evidentiary hearing on behalf of Jodell Altier.

119. At the evidentiary hearing, respondent testified that he knew Roebuck and Lim had used both his state and federal court e-filing logins without his permission to file pleadings in his name.

120. Later, during respondent’s sworn statement taken in connection with this disciplinary matter, respondent testified that he did not know whether Roebuck or Lim filed pleadings in his name, explaining that he was upset about what was happening when he testified during the hearing in Jodell Altier’s case in federal court.

121. During his sworn statement, respondent testified that he did not know how the unauthorized filing occurred in Jodell Altier’s case and, therefore, he did not report either Roebuck or Lim to the Bar.

122. Respondent also later testified that there had been an agreement, at least in the beginning, that all Best Defense cases would be filed in his name.

123. Respondent further acknowledged that office staff had access to his login credentials for both state and federal court.

124. Although respondent was aware by the time that the notice of appeal was filed on behalf of Jodell Altier that his filing credentials were being used by staff in filing documents with state court, respondent did not change his password for the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida e-filing system.

125. Respondent permitted a situation to exist whereby his federal court e-filing credentials and login information were used by others to file documents in Jodell Altier’s case without his knowledge or approval.

126. It was established at the January 8, 2019, evidentiary hearing in Jodell Altier’s case that Lim met with respondent after a bankruptcy hearing for Jodell Altier in February 2018 to discuss whether Altier should appeal the bankruptcy court’s decision.

127. Respondent could not explain why Lim met with him after the hearing other than to say that they worked in the same office.

128. Respondent denied sending Lim to cover the Altier bankruptcy hearing.

129. The deadline for filing the appeal in Jodell Altier’s case was calendared by Best Defense Law staff who Roebuck, Lim and respondent shared.

130. One of the issues being considered in allowing Jodell Altier to file a belated appellate brief was whether she missed the deadline because she did not have adequate legal representation in this matter. The court was unable to discern who filed the notice of appeal using respondent’s credentials.

131. At the January 8, 2019, hearing, the court ultimately granted Jodell Altier an extension of time to file an appellate brief with the judge stating: “I think under these circumstances I have to give a layperson who’s dealing with the lawyers in this case the benefit of the doubt.”

132. During the January 8, 2019, evidentiary hearing, it also came to light that Bosecker, a disbarred attorney, had drafted documents for Jodell Altier to file pro se in the matter at a time when Bosecker was suspended but not yet disbarred.

133. Jodell Altier testified that Bosecker called her after Jodell Altier missed the deadline and offered to file something to prevent dismissal of her case.

134. Both of the Altiers testified that they believed respondent ultimately was responsible for the legal representation because it was his name that appeared on all of the pleadings filed in Jodell Altier’s bankruptcy appeal case.

135. Both of the Altiers testified that they relied on Resilient Group to provide them with competent legal services.

136. Furthermore, Daniel Newton Brodersen, who gave up his right to practice law in 2017, sent Joseph Altier a copy of the membership agreement for Resilient Group from an email address associated with Best Defense Law.

137. In this email, sent in February 2018, Brodersen stated: “Remember, those PMA fees contemplate our lawyers, as well as Roddy [Boling] and I, doing a great deal of work on the bankruptcy appeal, which is not normally something that the PMA deals with.”

138. Both Joseph Altier and Brodersen signed the agreement for Resilient Group.

139. Respondent testified during his sworn statement taken in connection with these disciplinary proceedings that he was concerned about Brodersen being a “disbarred” attorney who was drafting pleadings and suggesting courses of legal actions.

140. On January 23, 2019, Jodell Altier filed Appellant’s Opening Brief pro se. A conference hearing was set for February 4, 2019. During the hearing, it came to light that an unknown nonlawyer at Resilient Group helped Jodell Altier draft the brief.

141. Jodell Altier testified that there was no attorney involved and that she believed a secretary or paralegal helped her.

142. Although respondent was aware of the multiple allegations of professional misconduct in connection with the Altier case, Resilient Group and Best Defense Law, respondent did not report the attorneys and the former attorneys involved to The Florida Bar.

143. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:

a. 3-4.3 (1993) The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney’s relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.

b. 3-4.3 (2018) The standards of professional conduct required of members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline are not all-inclusive nor is the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance of the act of misconduct. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.

c. 4-1.1 A lawyer must provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

d. 4-1.4(a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in terminology, is required by these rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

e. 4-1.5(a) A lawyer must not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost, or a fee generated by employment that was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

f. 4-1.6(a) A lawyer must not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent.

g. 4-1.6(e) A lawyer must make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.

h. 4-1.8(f) (2010) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

i. 4-1.8(f) (2018) A lawyer is prohibited from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client- lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

j. 4-1.16(a)(1) Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law.

k. 4-3.3(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

l. 4-3.4(c) A lawyer must not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.

m. 4-5.1 (a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (b) Any lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders the specific conduct or, with knowledge thereof, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

n. 4-5.3 (a) A person who uses the title of paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term when offering or providing services to the public must work for or under the direction or supervision of a lawyer or law firm. (b) With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer or an authorized business entity as defined elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: (1) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a lawyer is responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer: (A) orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (B) is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. (c) Although paralegals or legal assistants may perform the duties delegated to them by the lawyer without the presence or active involvement of the lawyer, the lawyer must review and be responsible for the work product of the paralegals or legal assistants.

o. 4-5.4(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to 1 or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation that fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; (3) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, in accordance with the provisions of rule 4- 1.17, pay to the estate or other legally authorized representative of that lawyer the agreed upon purchase price; (4) bonuses may be paid to nonlawyer employees for work performed, and may be based on their extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specified time period. Bonus payments shall not be based on cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm by the actions of the nonlawyer. A lawyer shall not provide a bonus payment that is calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer or law firm; and (5) a lawyer may share court-awarded fees with a nonprofit, pro bono legal services organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.

p. 4-5.4(c) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

q. 4-5.4(d) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

r. 4-5.4(e) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a business entity authorized to practice law for a profit if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; or (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

s. 4-7.18(a) (2013) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient and includes any written form of communication, including any electronic mail communication, directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4–7.11 through 4–7.17 of these rules. (2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

t. 4-7.18(a) (2018) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit in person, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit in person on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, by electronic means that include realtime communication face-to-face such as video telephone or video conference, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient that does not meet the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.17 of these rules. (2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

u. 4-7.21(f) A name, letterhead, business card or advertisement may not imply that lawyers practice in a partnership or authorized business entity when they do not.

v. 4-7.22 (2013) (a) A lawyer may not accept referrals from a lawyer referral service, and it is a violation of these Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to do so, unless the service: (1) engages in no communication with the public and in no direct contact with prospective clients in a manner that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if the communication or contact were made by the lawyer; (2) receives no fee or charge that constitutes a division or sharing of fees, unless the service is a not-for-profit service approved by The Florida Bar pursuant to chapter 8 of these rules; (3) refers clients only to persons lawfully permitted to practice law in Florida when the services to be rendered constitute the practice of law in Florida; (4) carries or requires each lawyer participating in the service to carry professional liability insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 per claim or occurrence; (5) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names and Florida bar membership numbers of all lawyers participating in the service; (6) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names of all persons authorized to act on behalf of the service; (7) responds in writing, within 15 days, to any official inquiry by bar counsel when bar counsel is seeking information described in this subdivision or conducting an investigation into the conduct of the service or a lawyer who accepts referrals from the service; (8) neither represents nor implies to the public that the service is endorsed or approved by The Florida Bar, unless the service is subject to chapter 8 of these rules; (9) uses its actual legal name or a registered fictitious name in all communications with the public; (10) affirmatively states in all advertisements that it is a lawyer referral service; and (11) affirmatively states in all advertisements that lawyers who accept referrals from it pay to participate in the lawyer referral service. (b) A lawyer who accepts referrals from a lawyer referral service is responsible for ensuring that any advertisements or written communications used by the service comply with the requirements of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, including the provisions of this subchapter. (c) A “lawyer referral service” is: (1) any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity that receives a fee or charge for referring or causing the direct or indirect referral of a potential client to a lawyer drawn from a specific group or panel of lawyers; or (2) any group or pooled advertising program operated by any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity wherein the legal services advertisements utilize a common telephone number or website and potential clients are then referred only to lawyers or law firms participating in the group or pooled advertising program. A pro bono referral program, in which the participating lawyers do not pay a fee or charge of any kind to receive referrals or to belong to the referral panel, and are undertaking the referred matters without expectation of remuneration, is not a lawyer referral service within the definition of this rule.

w. 4-8.3(a) (2006, 2012, 2018) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

x. 4-8.3(a) (2019) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects must inform the appropriate professional authority.

y. 4-8.4(a) A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.

z. 4-8.4(c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

aa. 4-8.4(d) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

bb. 4-8.6(b) No authorized business entity may engage in the practice of law in the state of Florida or render advice under or interpretations of Florida law except through officers, directors, partners, managers, agents, or employees who are qualified to render legal services in this state.

cc. 4-8.6(c) No person may serve as a partner, manager, director or executive officer of an authorized business entity that is engaged in the practice of law in Florida unless such person is legally qualified to render legal services in this state. For purposes of this rule the term “executive officer” includes the president, vice-president, or any other officer who performs a policy-making function.

dd. 4-8.6(d) A lawyer who, while acting as a shareholder, member, officer, director, partner, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee of an authorized business entity and engaged in the practice of law in Florida, violates or sanctions the violation of the authorized business entity statutes or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar will be subject to disciplinary action.

THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2019-30,726 (5B)

The Florida Bar re-alleges paragraphs 4 through 80 as if set forth fully herein and further alleges:

144. Attorney Kathleen Achille’s firm represented the defendants in the following lawsuits:

Russell Shrewsbury v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, et al., in Brevard County Circuit Court Case No. 2018-CA- 12016

and

Krieger v. U.S. Bank, N.A., as Legal Title Trustee for Truman, et al., in Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2018-CA-003193.

145. Respondent was listed as counsel of record for the plaintiffs in both cases.

146. In the Shrewsbury case in Brevard County, a hearing was held on March 6, 2019 on Achille’s Motion to Quash Service of Process and Motion to Vacate Default where respondent failed to appear.

147. Instead, respondent sent an ex parte email to the presiding judge advising that he could not be appear at the hearing due to a conflict with another matter in Lake County, Florida, that required his attendance.

148. Respondent further advised the judge that he did not represent the plaintiff, Russell Shrewsbury, and never had contact with Shrewsbury.

149. The morning of the hearing respondent filed a Motion to Discharge or Withdraw citing that respondent did not practice in the area of business torts or civil litigation, that he had not met the plaintiff, and that attorneys at Best Defense Law “behaved in a manner not consistent with [respondent’s] understanding and expectations from representations previously made.”

150. Despite respondent’s assertion, all pleadings filed in both the Shrewsbury and Krieger cases bore respondent’s signature block, his electronic signature, and his Florida Bar attorney number.

151. Further, with respect to the Shrewsbury case, Achille’s client was not properly served with process, yet a default was entered against the client.

152. Achille’s firm discovered the default by chance while conducting a routine docket check.

153. Respondent permitted a situation to exist whereby others were able to access his e-filing credentials and file pleadings in respondent’s name in cases where respondent was not representing the clients and had no knowledge of the cases.

154. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:

a. 3-4.3 (1993) The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney’s relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.

b. 3-4.3 (2018) The standards of professional conduct required of members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline are not all-inclusive nor is the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance of the act of misconduct. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.

c. 4-1.1 A lawyer must provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

d. 4-1.4(a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in terminology, is required by these rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

e. 4-1.8(f) (2010) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

f. 4-1.8(f) (2018) A lawyer is prohibited from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client- lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

g. 4-1.16(a)(1) Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law.

h. 4-3.5(b) In an adversary proceeding a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending except: (1) in the course of the official proceeding in the cause; (2) in writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to the opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer; (3) orally upon notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer; or (4) as otherwise authorized by law.

i. 4-4.1 In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.

j. 4-5.1 (a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (b) Any lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders the specific conduct or, with knowledge thereof, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

k. 4-5.3 (a) A person who uses the title of paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term when offering or providing services to the public must work for or under the direction or supervision of a lawyer or law firm. (b) With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer or an authorized business entity as defined elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: (1) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a lawyer is responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer: (A) orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (B) is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. (c) Although paralegals or legal assistants may perform the duties delegated to them by the lawyer without the presence or active involvement of the lawyer, the lawyer must review and be responsible for the work product of the paralegals or legal assistants.

l. 4-5.4(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to 1 or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation that fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; (3) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, in accordance with the provisions of rule 4- 1.17, pay to the estate or other legally authorized representative of that lawyer the agreed upon purchase price; (4) bonuses may be paid to nonlawyer employees for work performed, and may be based on their extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specified time period. Bonus payments shall not be based on cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm by the actions of the nonlawyer. A lawyer shall not provide a bonus payment that is calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer or law firm; and (5) a lawyer may share court-awarded fees with a nonprofit, pro bono legal services organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.

m. 4-5.4(c) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

n. 4-5.4(d) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

o. 4-5.4(e) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a business entity authorized to practice law for a profit if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; or (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

p. 4-8.3(a) (2006, 2012, 2018) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

q. 4-8.3(a) (2019) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects must inform the appropriate professional authority.

r. 4-8.4(a) A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.

s. 4-8.4(c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

t. 4-8.4(d) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

u. 4-8.6(b) No authorized business entity may engage in the practice of law in the state of Florida or render advice under or interpretations of Florida law except through officers, directors, partners, managers, agents, or employees who are qualified to render legal services in this state.

v. 4-8.6(c) No person may serve as a partner, manager, director or executive officer of an authorized business entity that is engaged in the practice of law in Florida unless such person is legally qualified to render legal services in this state. For purposes of this rule the term “executive officer” includes the president, vice-president, or any other officer who performs a policy-making function.

w. 4-8.6(d) A lawyer who, while acting as a shareholder, member, officer, director, partner, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee of an authorized business entity and engaged in the practice of law in Florida, violates or sanctions the violation of the authorized business entity statutes or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar will be subject to disciplinary action.

THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2020-30,084 (5B)

The Florida Bar re-alleges paragraphs 4 through 80 as if set forth fully herein and further alleges:

155. William Hammond, a resident of Montana, owned a timeshare at a resort known as Festiva, located in Maryland.

156. Although Hammond never retained respondent or Best Defense Law, Festiva resort was advised otherwise.

157. Hammond advised that he was told that the resort had received an injunction from Best Defense Law Team on March 7, 2018.

158. As a result of the apparent legal dispute, Festiva resort refused to permit Hammond use of his timeshare located at a resort property in Maryland.

159. When Hammond attempted to contact respondent and/or Best Defense Law Team, he was unable to reach anyone. Best Defense Law Team’s website was no longer operational, and Hammond was unable to leave a message at the phone number listed.

160. Respondent’s failure to exercise supervision and control over the case managers, lawyers and non-lawyers working with Best Defense Law resulted in respondent being unaware he was representing Hammond.

161. Respondent permitted a situation to exist whereby William Howell was able to use respondent’s law firm to solicit timeshare owners and to lead the owners to believe they were receiving legal services from respondent.

162. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:

a. 3-4.3 (1993) The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney’s relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.

b. 3-4.3 (2018) The standards of professional conduct required of members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline are not all-inclusive nor is the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance of the act of misconduct. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.

c. 4-1.1 A lawyer must provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

d. 4-1.4 (a) Informing Client of Status of Representation. A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in terminology, is required by these rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. (b) Duty to Explain Matters to Client. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

e. 4-1.5(a) (2012, 2018) An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost, or a fee generated by employment that was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

f. 4-1.6(a) A lawyer must not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent.

g. 4-1.6(e) A lawyer must make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.

h. 4-1.8(f) (2010) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

i. 4-1.8(f) (2018) A lawyer is prohibited from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client- lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

j. 4-4.1 In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.

k. 4-5.1 (a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (b) Any lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders the specific conduct or, with knowledge thereof, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

l. 4-5.3 (a) A person who uses the title of paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term when offering or providing services to the public must work for or under the direction or supervision of a lawyer or law firm. (b) With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer or an authorized business entity as defined elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: (1) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a lawyer is responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer: (A) orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (B) is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. (c) Although paralegals or legal assistants may perform the duties delegated to them by the lawyer without the presence or active involvement of the lawyer, the lawyer must review and be responsible for the work product of the paralegals or legal assistants.

m. 4-5.4(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to 1 or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation that fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; (3) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, in accordance with the provisions of rule 4- 1.17, pay to the estate or other legally authorized representative of that lawyer the agreed upon purchase price; (4) bonuses may be paid to nonlawyer employees for work performed, and may be based on their extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specified time period. Bonus payments shall not be based on cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm by the actions of the nonlawyer. A lawyer shall not provide a bonus payment that is calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer or law firm; and (5) a lawyer may share court-awarded fees with a nonprofit, pro bono legal services organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.

n. 4-5.4(c) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

o. 4-5.4(d) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

p. 4-5.4(e) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a business entity authorized to practice law for a profit if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; or (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

q. 4-5.5(a) A lawyer may not practice law in a jurisdiction other than the lawyer’s home state, in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in the lawyer’s home state or assist another in doing so.

r. 4-7.18(a) (2013) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient and includes any written form of communication, including any electronic mail communication, directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4–7.11 through 4–7.17 of these rules. (2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

s. 4-7.18(a) (2018) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit in person, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit in person on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, by electronic means that include realtime communication face-to-face such as video telephone or video conference, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient that does not meet the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.17 of these rules. (2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

t. 4-7.22 (2013) (a) A lawyer may not accept referrals from a lawyer referral service, and it is a violation of these Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to do so, unless the service: (1) engages in no communication with the public and in no direct contact with prospective clients in a manner that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if the communication or contact were made by the lawyer; (2) receives no fee or charge that constitutes a division or sharing of fees, unless the service is a not-for-profit service approved by The Florida Bar pursuant to chapter 8 of these rules; (3) refers clients only to persons lawfully permitted to practice law in Florida when the services to be rendered constitute the practice of law in Florida; (4) carries or requires each lawyer participating in the service to carry professional liability insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 per claim or occurrence; (5) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names and Florida bar membership numbers of all lawyers participating in the service; (6) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names of all persons authorized to act on behalf of the service; (7) responds in writing, within 15 days, to any official inquiry by bar counsel when bar counsel is seeking information described in this subdivision or conducting an investigation into the conduct of the service or a lawyer who accepts referrals from the service; (8) neither represents nor implies to the public that the service is endorsed or approved by The Florida Bar, unless the service is subject to chapter 8 of these rules; (9) uses its actual legal name or a registered fictitious name in all communications with the public; (10) affirmatively states in all advertisements that it is a lawyer referral service; and (11) affirmatively states in all advertisements that lawyers who accept referrals from it pay to participate in the lawyer referral service. (b) A lawyer who accepts referrals from a lawyer referral service is responsible for ensuring that any advertisements or written communications used by the service comply with the requirements of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, including the provisions of this subchapter. (c) A “lawyer referral service” is: (1) any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity that receives a fee or charge for referring or causing the direct or indirect referral of a potential client to a lawyer drawn from a specific group or panel of lawyers; or (2) any group or pooled advertising program operated by any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity wherein the legal services advertisements utilize a common telephone number or website and potential clients are then referred only to lawyers or law firms participating in the group or pooled advertising program. A pro bono referral program, in which the participating lawyers do not pay a fee or charge of any kind to receive referrals or to belong to the referral panel, and are undertaking the referred matters without expectation of remuneration, is not a lawyer referral service within the definition of this rule.

u. 4-8.4(a) A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.

v. 4-8.4(c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

w. 4-8.6(b) No authorized business entity may engage in the practice of law in the state of Florida or render advice under or interpretations of Florida law except through officers, directors, partners, managers, agents, or employees who are qualified to render legal services in this state.

x. 4-8.6(c) No person may serve as a partner, manager, director or executive officer of an authorized business entity that is engaged in the practice of law in Florida unless such person is legally qualified to render legal services in this state. For purposes of this rule the term “executive officer” includes the president, vice-president, or any other officer who performs a policy-making function.

y. 4-8.6(d) A lawyer who, while acting as a shareholder, member, officer, director, partner, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee of an authorized business entity and engaged in the practice of law in Florida, violates or sanctions the violation of the authorized business entity statutes or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar will be subject to disciplinary action.

THE FLORIDA BAR FILE NO. 2020-30,781 (5B)

The Florida Bar re-alleges paragraphs 4 through 80 as if set forth fully herein and further alleges:

163. Joseph Nemchik believed he retained respondent through his membership in Resilient Group, PMA to represent him as the plaintiff in a civil case filed in Orange County Circuit Court, Nemchik v. Parablis, et. al., Case No. 2016-CA-010177.

164. Respondent explained that his involvement in this case was limited to filing a motion to continue on January 15, 2018, after being approached by a shared administrative person that neither attorney Roebuck or Lim were available to cover a hearing that was set.

165. However, respondent’s motion to continue filed on January 15, 2018, stated that respondent’s law firm had just been retained by Nemchik on January 12, 2018, and that he was requesting to reschedule the hearing within the next thirty days to competently prepare to argue opposing counsel’s motions.

166. Respondent’s motion indicated that it was submitted by Allan Campbell, Esq., with Best Defense Law.

167. Furthermore, a Notice of Appearance was filed on January 10, 2018, also stating that it was submitted by respondent and that Allan Campbell, Esq., with Best Defense Law was entering his appearance as counsel of record.

168. Prior to respondent entering his notice of appearance, Nemchik was pro se.

169. Respondent received an Order Setting Status Hearing approximately 20 months later and realized he remained counsel of record in Nemchik’s case.

170. Upon receiving this order setting a status hearing for January 10, 2020, respondent promptly filed a Motion to Withdraw from Continued Representation on November 22, 2019.

171. In his motion to withdraw, respondent stated that he was no longer associated with Best Defense Law and had not been since March 2018.

172. Respondent further stated that he had not met with and did not know nor have any attorney-client relationship with Nemchik since having left Best Defense Law.

173. Finally, respondent stated that he had no independent means of contacting Nemchik about the case and the hearing.

174. Respondent did not set his motion to withdraw for hearing, and the court did not enter an order granting respondent’s withdrawal.

175. When respondent and Nemchik failed to appear for the status hearing on January 10, 2020, the case was dismissed.

176. Respondent believed he did not need to appear at the January 10, 2020, hearing because he could offer no information about the case and expected that Nemchik would be present as he was noticed about the hearing.

177. Nemchik has stated that he had met with respondent many times and that respondent had all of his contact information.

178. After learning the case was dismissed, Nemchik filed a motion to vacate the dismissal. The court then set a hearing on Nemchik’s motion for January 30, 2020.

179. Thereafter, Nemchik contacted respondent and insisted that respondent file a motion to correct the dismissal.

180. On January 29, 2020, respondent filed a Motion to Hear Motion to Withdraw First and a Cross-Notice of Hearing to have his motion to withdraw heard at the January 30 hearing.

181. Both respondent and Nemchik appeared at the January 30, 2020, hearing.

182. Respondent stated that the court did not hear argument on respondent’s motion to withdraw and found that because Nemchik had counsel, his pro se motions were moot.

183. Respondent then filed a Motion to Correct Mistake based on the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, realizing that he needed the case reopened for the court to hear his motion to withdraw.

184. A hearing was held on respondent’s motion on March 3, 2020.

The court denied respondent’s motion to correct mistake but granted his amended motion to withdraw.

185. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:

a. 3-4.3 (1993) The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney’s relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline.

b. 3-4.3 (2018) The standards of professional conduct required of members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline are not all-inclusive nor is the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance of the act of misconduct. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.

c. 4-1.1 A lawyer must provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

d. 4-1.4(a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in terminology, is required by these rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

e. 4-1.5(a) A lawyer must not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost, or a fee generated by employment that was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

f. 4-1.8(f) (2010) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

g. 4-1.8(f) (2018) A lawyer is prohibited from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless: (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client- lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

h. 4-1.16(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers and other property relating to or belonging to the client to the extent permitted by law.

i. 4-3.3(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

j. 4-3.4(c) A lawyer must not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.

k. 4-5.1 (a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (b) Any lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders the specific conduct or, with knowledge thereof, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

l. 4-5.3 (a) A person who uses the title of paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term when offering or providing services to the public must work for or under the direction or supervision of a lawyer or law firm. (b) With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer or an authorized business entity as defined elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: (1) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (2) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (3) a lawyer is responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer: (A) orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (B) is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. (c) Although paralegals or legal assistants may perform the duties delegated to them by the lawyer without the presence or active involvement of the lawyer, the lawyer must review and be responsible for the work product of the paralegals or legal assistants.

m. 4-5.4(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to 1 or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation that fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; (3) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, in accordance with the provisions of rule 4- 1.17, pay to the estate or other legally authorized representative of that lawyer the agreed upon purchase price; (4) bonuses may be paid to nonlawyer employees for work performed, and may be based on their extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specified time period. Bonus payments shall not be based on cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm by the actions of the nonlawyer. A lawyer shall not provide a bonus payment that is calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer or law firm; and (5) a lawyer may share court-awarded fees with a nonprofit, pro bono legal services organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.

n. 4-5.4(c) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

o. 4-5.4(d) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

p. 4-5.4(e) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a business entity authorized to practice law for a profit if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; or (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

q. 4-7.18(a) (2013) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient and includes any written form of communication, including any electronic mail communication, directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4–7.11 through 4–7.17 of these rules. (2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

r. 4-7.18(a) (2018) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of this rule, a lawyer may not: (1) solicit in person, or permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit in person on the lawyer’s behalf, professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, by electronic means that include realtime communication face-to-face such as video telephone or video conference, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient that does not meet the requirements of subdivision (b) of this rule and rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.17 of these rules. (2) enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of this rule.

s. 4-7.21(f) A name, letterhead, business card or advertisement may not imply that lawyers practice in a partnership or authorized business entity when they do not.

t. 4-7.22 (2013) (a) A lawyer may not accept referrals from a lawyer referral service, and it is a violation of these Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to do so, unless the service: (1) engages in no communication with the public and in no direct contact with prospective clients in a manner that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if the communication or contact were made by the lawyer; (2) receives no fee or charge that constitutes a division or sharing of fees, unless the service is a not-for-profit service approved by The Florida Bar pursuant to chapter 8 of these rules; (3) refers clients only to persons lawfully permitted to practice law in Florida when the services to be rendered constitute the practice of law in Florida; (4) carries or requires each lawyer participating in the service to carry professional liability insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 per claim or occurrence; (5) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names and Florida bar membership numbers of all lawyers participating in the service; (6) furnishes The Florida Bar, on a quarterly basis, with the names of all persons authorized to act on behalf of the service; (7) responds in writing, within 15 days, to any official inquiry by bar counsel when bar counsel is seeking information described in this subdivision or conducting an investigation into the conduct of the service or a lawyer who accepts referrals from the service; (8) neither represents nor implies to the public that the service is endorsed or approved by The Florida Bar, unless the service is subject to chapter 8 of these rules; (9) uses its actual legal name or a registered fictitious name in all communications with the public; (10) affirmatively states in all advertisements that it is a lawyer referral service; and (11) affirmatively states in all advertisements that lawyers who accept referrals from it pay to participate in the lawyer referral service. (b) A lawyer who accepts referrals from a lawyer referral service is responsible for ensuring that any advertisements or written communications used by the service comply with the requirements of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, including the provisions of this subchapter. (c) A “lawyer referral service” is: (1) any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity that receives a fee or charge for referring or causing the direct or indirect referral of a potential client to a lawyer drawn from a specific group or panel of lawyers; or (2) any group or pooled advertising program operated by any person, group of persons, association, organization, or entity wherein the legal services advertisements utilize a common telephone number or website and potential clients are then referred only to lawyers or law firms participating in the group or pooled advertising program. A pro bono referral program, in which the participating lawyers do not pay a fee or charge of any kind to receive referrals or to belong to the referral panel, and are undertaking the referred matters without expectation of remuneration, is not a lawyer referral service within the definition of this rule.

u. 4-8.3(a) (2006, 2012, 2018) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

v. 4-8.3(a) (2019) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects must inform the appropriate professional authority.

w. 4-8.4(a) A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.

x. 4-8.4(c) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

y. 4-8.4(d) A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

z. 4-8.6(b) No authorized business entity may engage in the practice of law in the state of Florida or render advice under or interpretations of Florida law except through officers, directors, partners, managers, agents, or employees who are qualified to render legal services in this state.

aa. 4-8.6(c) No person may serve as a partner, manager, director or executive officer of an authorized business entity that is engaged in the practice of law in Florida unless such person is legally qualified to render legal services in this state. For purposes of this rule the term “executive officer” includes the president, vice-president, or any other officer who performs a policy-making function.

bb. 4-8.6(d) A lawyer who, while acting as a shareholder, member, officer, director, partner, proprietor, manager, agent, or employee of an authorized business entity and engaged in the practice of law in Florida, violates or sanctions the violation of the authorized business entity statutes or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar will be subject to disciplinary action.

WHEREFORE, The Florida Bar prays respondent will be appropriately disciplined in accordance with the provisions of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as amended.

LAURA N. GRYB,
Bar Counsel The Florida Bar
1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625
Orlando, Florida 32801-1050
(407) 425-5424
Florida Bar No. 89047
lgryb@floridabar.org
orlandooffice@floridabar.org
dsullivan@floridabar.org

PATRICIA ANN TORO SAVITZ
Staff Counsel The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 561-5839
Florida Bar No. 559547
psavitz@floridabar.org

I certify that this document has been efiled with The Honorable John A. Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, using the e-filing portal, and that a copy has been furnished by United States Mail via certified mail No. 7017 1450 0000 7821 0827, return receipt requested to Allan Campbell, Respondent, whose record Bar address is The Law Office of Allan Campbell, Post Office Box 953724, Lake Mary, Florida 32795- 3724, and via email at attyacampbell@aol.com; and to Laura N. Gryb, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, 1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625, Orlando, Florida 32801-1050, via email at lgryb@floridabar.org, orlandooffice@floridabar.org, on this 29th day of October, 2021.

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz

Staff Counsel

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the trial counsel in this matter is Laura N. Gryb, Bar Counsel, whose address, telephone number and primary email address are The Florida Bar, 1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625, Orlando, Florida 32801-1050, (407) 425-5424 and lgryb@floridabar.org, orlandooffice@floridabar.org, dsullivan@floridabar.org. Respondent need not address pleadings, correspondence, etc. in this matter to anyone other than trial counsel and to Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, psavitz@floridabar.org.

RULE 3-7.6(h)(2), RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, PROVIDES THAT A RESPONDENT SHALL ANSWER A COMPLAINT.

About Allan Campbell

Residence

Today, Allan Campbell Works Here...

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Bankruptcy

Married with Children, Foreclosure Defense Attorney Andrew John Manie’s Sexual Misconduct Privileged

During a criminal investigation, lawyer Manie was given immunity from criminal prosecution by the Statewide Prosecutor.

Published

on

From Manie’s Online Website

(Last Visited on Jun 2, 2022)

Attorney Andrew John Manie grew up in South Florida. After graduating from High School, he joined the United States Marine Corp.

After serving his country honorably, Attorney Manie attended Barry University School of Law in Orlando, Florida.

He obtained his certificate in trial advocacy as well as his juris doctorate degree.

Mr. Manie spent several years with private firms throughout Central Florida, representing clients in consumer bankruptcies, foreclosure defense, foreclosures, debt collection, debt defense, contract drafting and disputes.

Attorney Manie has been married for over 12 years to his wife and has two wonderful children.

CONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA FOR CONSENT JUDGMENT

MAY 27, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 2, 2022

COMES NOW, the undersigned respondent, Andrew John Manie, and files this Conditional Guilty Plea pursuant to Rule 3-7.9 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

1. Respondent is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a member of The Florida Bar, subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.

2. Respondent is currently the subject of a Florida Bar disciplinary matter which has been assigned The Florida Bar File No. 2021-30,486 (5A).

There has been a finding of probable cause by the grievance committee.

3. Respondent is acting freely and voluntarily in this matter and tenders this plea without fear or threat of coercion.

Respondent is represented by counsel in this matter.

EXHIBIT A

4. The disciplinary measures to be imposed upon respondent are as follows:

A. A six-month suspension from the practice of law with proof of rehabilitation prior to reinstatement.

B. Upon reinstatement to the practice of law, a four-year period of probation with Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. (FLA, Inc.) with the following conditions:

i. Respondent will participate actively in the program offered by FLA, Inc., by signing a rehabilitation contract with that organization within 30 days of the order of the Supreme Court of Florida recommending reinstatement. Respondent shall follow all recommendations by FLA, Inc. during the entire probation period.

ii. Respondent will pay a FLA, Inc., registration fee of $250.00 and a probation monitoring fee of $100.00 per month directly to FLA, Inc. The Florida Bar will monitor respondent’s compliance with his FLA, Inc. rehabilitation contract, including nonpayment of the monthly monitoring fees.

Should respondent fail to pay FLA, Inc., respondent’s failure to pay will be reported to The Florida Bar and the bar will follow up, with regards to respondent’s noncompliance, up to and including holding respondent in contempt for failure to pay the monthly monitoring fees.

iii. Payment of the bar’s disciplinary costs.

5. Respondent acknowledges that, unless waived or modified by the Court on motion of respondent, the court order will contain a provision that prohibits respondent from accepting new business from the date of the order or opinion and shall provide that the suspension is effective 30 days from the date of the order or opinion so that respondent may close out the practice of law and protect the interest of existing clients.

6. The following allegations provide the basis for respondent’s guilty plea and for the discipline to be imposed in this matter:

A. On January 15, 2021, during a criminal investigation, respondent was interviewed by agents of the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation.

Prior to providing a statement, respondent was given immunity from criminal prosecution by the Statewide Prosecutor.

Respondent voluntarily admitted to the agents and the Assistant Statewide Prosecutor that, in September 2019, respondent responded to an advertisement posted on an escort website and committed a sexual act with a woman in exchange for money.

When respondent entered the escort website, the website displayed a message stating that you must be 21 years or older to enter the website.

B. During this time, the respondent was under severe emotional and mental distress.

The advertisement that respondent responded to stated that the escort in the picture was over the age of 18 years old, and the individual who the respondent visited appeared to be much older than 18 years old.

C. At the time of the act in 2019, respondent, who was 30 years old at the time, believed he was meeting with an escort that was over the age of 18, however, the individual, was in fact 17 years and 9 months of age.

When, during the interview of the respondent by the agents, the respondent was told of the victim’s age, he was so upset she was underaged, he broke down in tears.

The Assistant Statewide Prosecutor stated she believed the respondent was not aware of the victim’s age.

D. Pursuant to the grant of immunity, respondent was not criminally prosecuted for the offense.

7. The following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar provide the basis for the discipline to be imposed in this matter:

3-4.3 [Misconduct and Minor Misconduct];

3-4.4 [Criminal Misconduct];

and

4-8.4(b) [Misconduct].

8. In aggravation, although respondent was unaware at the time of his misconduct of both facts, the victim was vulnerable as she was a minor and was a victim of human trafficking [Standard 3.2(b)(8)].

9. The respondent offers the following factors in mitigation:

A. The respondent has no prior disciplinary record [Standard 3.3(b)(1)].

B. The respondent is an Iraqi War Veteran who served in the United States Marine Corps from 2007 until 2011 when he was medically retired due to debilitating medical conditions which arose during his service and are ongoing to the present time.

As a result of his military service, respondent endured physical and mental trauma and suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).

In addition, respondent experienced significant and repeated trauma during his childhood, which in combination with his PTSD and ongoing health issues resulted in significant mental health issues which was a substantial contributing factor in the underlying misconduct [Standard 3.3(b)(3) and 3.3(b)(8)].

C. The respondent has provided full and free disclosure to the bar and demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings and has cooperated with the Statewide Prosecutor’s office [Standard 3.3(b)(5)].

D. The respondent was inexperienced in the practice of law at the time of the misconduct [Standard 3.3(b)(6)].

E. The respondent has good character and reputation within the community.

Respondent honorably served his country in Iraq and mentors fellow Marines suffering through post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Respondent is a sole practitioner and also regularly provides pro-bono legal services to those in need [Standard 3.3(b)(7)].

F. The respondent has been undergoing independent and ongoing counseling and treatment for more than eight months and he entered into a rehabilitation contract with FLA, Inc. on November 17, 2021, [Standard 3.3(b)(10)].

G. The respondent is sincerely remorseful for his actions [Standard 3.3(b)(12)].

10. The proposed sanction is supported by the following dispositions in recent cases:

A. In The Florida Bar v. Patrick James Landy Jr., Case No. SC20-1578 (Fla. Nov. 12, 2020), a former Assistant State Attorney was arrested and charged by information with Aggravated Stalking, a third-degree felony, and with Threats or Extortion, a second-degree felony.

He created and used fake social media accounts, hiding his identity, to harass, stalk and threaten his former girlfriend, who was also a Florida Assistant State Attorney.

In the criminal case, Mr. Landy entered no contest pleas to two amended charges of misdemeanor stalking.

Adjudication was withheld and respondent was placed on probation for one year as to each count to run consecutive, for a total of two years of probation with special conditions.

In the bar case, the Florida Bar agreed to a Consent Judgment for a public reprimand, three years of probation and participation in FLA Inc., which was approved by the Court.

Like the respondent, Mr. Landy had multiple mitigation factors, including absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, inexperience in the practice of law, physical or mental disability or impairment or substance-related disorder, interim rehabilitation, and remorse.

B. In The Florida Bar v. Gregory John Hoag, Case No. SC21-1683 (Fla. Dec. 16, 2021), the respondent pled no contest to misdemeanor domestic battery in July 2019.

Adjudication was withheld, and respondent was placed on probation with conditions, including abstaining from consuming alcohol, submitting to random urinalysis screenings, and attending a 29-week domestic violence intervention program.

Respondent successfully completed the terms of his criminal probation in June 2020.

A Consent Judgment for public reprimand by publication and completion of three-year FLA, Inc. contract was approved by the Court.

Mitigation included absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, full and free disclosure to the bar or cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions.

C. In The Florida Bar v. Juan Carlos Mercado Jr., Case No. SC21-1404 (Fla. Oct. 14, 2021), an Assistant State Attorney who engaged in a sexual relationship with a defendant who was pending prosecution by his office, provided confidential information to the defendant and offered her advice and assistance regarding her case, was suspended for six months.

Mitigation included inexperience in the practice of law, no prior disciplinary history, remorse, interim rehabilitation (counseling), good reputation in the legal community and community service.

D. In The Florida Bar v. Abraham Elmazahi, Case No. SC21- 781 (Fla. June 10, 2021), an Assistant State Attorney began a sexual relationship with the victim of a defendant he was prosecuting and filed additional charges against the defendant during his relationship with the victim.

The Court approved a Consent Judgment for a 90-day suspension with a three-year term of probation and attendance at a professional workshop and Ethics School.

Mitigation included absence of prior discipline, absence of dishonest or selfish motive, inexperience in the practice of law, cooperative attitude towards the proceedings and full and free disclosure to the bar, reputation and character in the community, the imposition of other sanctions, and remorse.

11. The Florida Bar has approved this proposed plea in the manner required by Rule 3-7.9.

12. If this plea is not finally approved by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and the Supreme Court of Florida, then it shall be of no effect and may not be used by the parties in any way.

13. Respondent agrees to eliminate all indicia of respondent’s status as an attorney on email, social media, telephone listings, stationery, checks, business cards, office signs or any other indicia of respondent’s status as an attorney, whatsoever.

14. If this plea is approved, then respondent agrees to pay all reasonable costs associated with this case pursuant to Rule 3-7.6(q) in the amount of $1,376.00. These costs are due within 30 days of the court order.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Bankruptcy

Florida Foreclosures and The Allan Campbell Pen Name Series: Titan Lavine

Darrin Lavine, Lina Lavine and their Relationship with Allan Campbell, Roddy Boling and Chris Lim et al, is detailed in this LIF exclusive series.

Published

on

LIF Reviews and Investigates D. C. Lavine and his wife, Lina Lavine, et al.

This is an evolving article, bookmark for updates as it forms part of a series of articles by LIF in a complex and lengthy scheme.

Seminole Court Record Search for Darrin Lavine

The Foreclosure Defender Darrin Lavine is Defending his Own Residence from Foreclosure

U.S. Bank, National Association v. Titans Group of Seminole County, Florida

(6:21-cv-00715-WWB-EJK)

District Court, M.D. Florida

OCT 26, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 4, 2022

U.S. Bank, National Association v. Titans Group of Seminole County, Florida

(6:19-cv-01434)

District Court, M.D. Florida

AUG 5, 2019 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 4, 2022

DARRIN C LAVINE -VS- CHRISTIANA TRUST

Case Number: 2019CA003134

OCT 10, 2019 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 21, 2022

Closed, 19 Apr. 2021

ORDER ON DEFTS US BANK NA AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TRUST & MTG ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT – GRANTED – JUDGE STACY 4/18/21

DARRIN C LAVINE -VS- US BANK NATL ASSN

Case Number: 2020CA000289

JAN 31, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 21, 2022

Vol. Dismissal, May 2020

3314 Sunset Ridge Ct, Longwood, Fl. 32779

US BANK NATL ASSN -VS- TITANS GROUP A TEXAS JOINT STOCK

Case No. 2019CA002063 [Active Foreclosure Case]

Tim Quinones. Florida Foreclosure Defense Lawyer

UPDATED DOCKET (11 MAY LAST ENTRY)

Deleted Page Recovered

Since May 11, there’s been two new events, a mediator has been appointed by the name of Steven Lippman, who we discover is a disbarred ex con. It cannot get more ridiculous, can it? Then we have Levine’s wife askin’ for an extension of time.

Ex-Lawyer Steven Lippman Gets 3 Years, Says Ex-Partner Scott Rothstein ‘Played Me Like a Fool’

A newly disbarred South Florida lawyer was sentenced Friday to three years in federal prison, in the latest fallout from the implosion of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm operated by convicted Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein, who is also disbarred and serving a 50-year federal prison term.

Although Steven Lippman, 50, was not charged in Rothstein’s $1.2 billion swindle, he violated banking, election and tax laws by helping the law firm illegally “bundle” contributions for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and initially failing to report as personal income some expensive perks that were provided by the law firm, including a 2009 Maserati, according to Bloomberg. The RRA firm was McCain’s biggest contributor.

Sun-Sentinel article provides additional details, noting that Lippman made some campaign contributions from his own personal account. He was then repaid with law firm “bonus” checks.

Lippman said he is “devastated” that he can no longer practice law, and described himself as “a real lawyer … doing real work.” His downfall, he said, was allowing himself to be influenced by his former partner, reports Bloomberg.

“The first mistake I made was an error in judgment regarding Scott Rothstein,” Lippman told the court. “I not only failed to ask the right questions, I agreed to do things that were wrong. Yes, he played me like a fool, but at the end of the day, I should have said no. That’s my fault.”

A prosecutor contended that Lippman did Rothstein’s bidding “to keep the gravy flowing.” Lippman made $400,000 in 2004, a year before joining RRA, but by 2008 was earning nearly $1.3 million.

The three-year sentence is roughly in the middle of the 18 months suggested by Lippman’s lawyer and the advisory sentencing guidelines range of 41 to 51 months sought by the government.

U.S. District Judge James Cohn gave Lippman praise for his abilities as a lawyer and his devotion to his family, the Sun-Sentinel reports. However, Lippman, who was hired to head RRA’s commercial litigation practice, was smart enough to know he was violating the law, the judge told those in the Ft. Lauderdale courtroom, including some 60 family members, friends and former clients who came in support of Lippman.

“It is this court’s opinion that the sentence must be sufficient to demonstrate to the public that white-collar crime is serious and that it comes with a price,” said Cohn.

Lippman must also pay $179,000 restitution and a $15,000 fine.

The South Florida Business Journal also has a story.

Earlier coverage:

ABAJournal.com: “Sun-Sentinel: Steven Lippman, Ex-Partner in Rothstein Firm, Will Take Plea in Conspiracy Case”

ABAJournal.com: “3rd Lawyer from Shuttered Rothstein Law Firm Is Disbarred After Criminal Conviction”

Original Complaint and Petition for Foreclosure by US Bank.

Multi-Tasker Lina Lavine - Coldwell Banker Realtor..and....

Extract from Fl. Bar complaint against Florida Lawyer Andrea Marie Roebuck

Nov. 10, 2021

7. Initially, respondent was employed directly by Titans Reserve Group, where she worked under Darrin Lavin and his wife, Lina Lavine, both of whom were nonlawyers.

8. Respondent testified during a sworn statement in this disciplinary matter that Titans Reserve Group did “pro se handling of issues” and “case law education.”

9. Kelley Andrea Bosecker provided members of Titans Reserve Group with legal services until her suspension from the practice of law effective May 27, 2016.

10. During this time, respondent opened her own law firm, Allegiant Law, P.A., on or about May 5, 2017, naming herself as vice president and Lina Lavine, as secretary.

11. Lina Lavine handled the bookkeeping for Allegiant Law, P.A. and Titans Reserve Group.

12. After forming Allegiant Law, P.A., respondent continued to work with Titan Reserve providing legal services to its members.

13. The members would pay Titans Reserve Group for legal services, and Titans Reserve Group would pay respondent’s salary as it had previously done…

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATL ASSN -VS- KENNETH E TAYLOR

Case Number: 2019CA001478 [Active Foreclosure]

644 W Colonial Dr, Orlando, FL 32804 (Lot/Land)

Original Complaint and Petition for Foreclosure by JPMorgan Chase.

Despite an order to show cause, the list of Boling defendants (Roddy Boling is the grandmaster of this foreclosure defense scheme and the address to where all summons and correspondence goes to – his mortgaged residence which is in pre-foreclosure itself) combined with the fact that Lavine is accepting mail via his lawyer in his own residential foreclosure case as detailed above, they have managed to spin the wheels on this foreclosure case for years without even effectively starting the lawsuit (due to aforementioned service issues).

It should also be noted that Boling is also accessible for service by the courts, he’s never out of them [except for his jail and halfway house stints] and has many ongoing cases where service could be effected, the most obvious is the jeep insurance payout dispute lawsuit.

Darrin Lavine et al as Defendant(s) to a "Members" Foreclosure Case

THE BANK OF NEW YORK -VS- BEVERLY MULLINGS

Case No. 2018CA003330 [Active Foreclosure Case]

829 Eagle Claw Ct, Lake Mary, FL 32746

In this foreclosure, we have ‘pro se’ defendant Lavine stating he needs an extension of time to file a response after the case was removed by Mullings and remanded to the State by the federal court, middle district (sounds familiar).

Original Complaint and Petition for Foreclosure by BONY.

US BANK NATL ASSN -VS- SANDRA L THOMAS

Case No. 2018CA003066 [Fraudulent transfer for no monetary value by the Lavines.]

702 Lighthouse Ct, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714

Judge Stacy’s Order Voiding Transfer as Fraudulent

Here we have admonished attorney Chris Lim moving in to represent the Lavines’ and also the shell game of companies, e.g. Resilient Roofing, Inc...

WELLS FARGO BANK NA -VS- DANIEL RODRIGUEZ

Case No. 2017CA001773 [Foreclosure Sale Canceled Pending Loan Mod etc.]

1344 Holly Glen Run, Apopka, FL 32703

Judge Debra Nelson found for Wells Fargo and then left the Bench. Judge Christopher Sprysenski replaced her in this case.

Court Hearing Transcript Judge Debra Nelson in Wells Fargo v Rodriguez

The homeowners won judgment in the first Wells Fargo lawsuit. Not this time.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Bankers

PHH Ocwen Involved in Yet Another Case of Harassment

PHH Mortgage Corporation is continuing to dunn Plaintiff for a debt that he does not owe,

Published

on

Brunson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

(3:22-cv-00127)

District Court, M.D. Florida

FEB 7, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 6, 2022

In June 2006, Plaintiff executed a mortgage and note on his home at 4441 Loveland Pass Drive East, Jacksonville, FL, 32210 which at all relevant times was serviced by Defendant PHH.

On or about March 16, 2018, Deutsche Bank National Trust, the holder of the original mortgage, filed a claim with the bankruptcy court.

On or about August 16, 2018, the Trustee for the bankruptcy court agreed to Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 Plan, disallowing Deutsche Bank’s mortgage claim from payment. The mortgage servicer, at the time, Ocwen, had this information.

The plan states as follows: “DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY . . . Secured $82,562.77 $0.00 $0.00 Claim Notes: Claim Disallowed.”

The Debt was discharged in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy on May 6, 2021.

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (AS TO TRANS UNION, LLC)

Plaintiff, CORNELL WADE BRUNSON, SR., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice and would represent to the Court that this action has been resolved against Defendant TRANS UNION, LLC.

Dated this 31st day of March, 2022,

MAX STORY, P.A.
/s/Max Story, Esquire

MAX STORY, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 527238

AUSTIN J. GRIFFIN, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 117740
328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
Jacksonville Beach,
FL 32250
Telephone (904) 372-4109
max@storylawgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 31, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notice of Electronic Filing.

/s/Max Story, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 527238

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Most Read

Copyright © 2022 LawsInFlorida.com is an online brand name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware | Caricatures by DonkeyHotey