Connect with us

Judges

Who Investigates the Dishonest Attorneys After the Florida Bar Formally Complains?

The Florida Bar Disciplinary List for September 2021 provides LIF with an opportunity to take a look at the “Referees” who recommend disciplinary sanctions.

Published

on

Florida Bar Disciplined Lawyers

SEP 1, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 5, 2021

The Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 10 attorneys, disbarring two, suspending two, and reprimanding five. One attorney was admonished.

Francine Blair Bogumil, 8950 Della Scala Cir., Orlando, disbarred effective immediately following a July 29 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2006)

On January 26 Bogumil pled no contest to three felonies and four misdemeanors in the Circuit Court in Orange County.

On March 25, in a second criminal matter, Bogumil pled no contest to three felonies.

(Case Nos: SC21-150 and SC21-481)

Sonya Charmaine Davis, 6356 Cypress Gardens Blvd., Winter Haven, public reprimand and directed to attend The Florida Bar’s Ethics School effective immediately following a July 15 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2001)

In two separate child custody modification matters, Davis failed to diligently pursue her clients’ objectives or effectively communicate with them.

(Case No: SC21-437)

THE SHERIFF N' THE JUDGE

Catherine Rose Faughnan, 12 Ardsley Rd., Binghamton, NY, disbarred effective immediately following a July 22 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2007)

Faughnan was held in contempt of the court’s order (Case No: SC20-1042) dated August 31, 2020, for once again failing to respond to the court’s previous order and for failing to notify clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of her suspension.

(Case No: SC21-848)

PITBULL LAWYER [W]RAPPED BY FL. BAR

Robert Laurence Pelletier, 233 E. Bay St., Suite 1020, Jacksonville, public reprimand effective immediately following a July 29 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2012)

Pelletier had an advertising campaign that listed him as “Pitbull Lawyer” in print, social media, and a boat wrap.

Bar counsel advised him to remove it, but he failed to comply as of late April 2021.

Pelletier, however, did finally comply and has removed that advertising campaign.

(Case No: SC21-316)

Pamela Randle, 20331 56th St., Live Oak, public reprimand effective immediately following a July 1 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2006)

Randle failed to adequately manage her caseload and supervise her employees while she was away from the office for an extended period of time due to health concerns.

Upon return, Randle discovered that her employees provided inadequate legal assistance to her clients, and, in a limited manner, engaged in the unlicensed practice of law.

Ultimately, it was discovered that no clients were harmed.

(Case No: SC21-76)

Simon Rosin, 2109 26th Street West, Unit 415, Bradenton, public reprimand effective immediately following a July 15 court order.

(Admitted to practice 1968)

Rosin represented a client and friend in a foreclosure litigation matter.

During the representation, Rosin filed a motion with the court wherein he humiliated and disparaged opposing counsel and opposing counsel’s firm.

Further, Rosin attached to the motion an email from opposing counsel that was inadvertently sent to Rosin and contained attorney-client privileged communication.

(Case No: SC19-2126)

Mario Serralta, 7900 Oak Lane, Suite 301, Miami Lakes, public reprimand effective immediately following a July 1 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1999)

SERRALTA DISCIPLINED BY JUDGE MICHAEL BARKET

Serralta failed to protect a charging lien of another attorney for the previous representation of a mutual client.

He also failed to supervise his nonlawyer assistant responsible for gathering all costs on the file, including liens and referral fees.

(Case No: SC20-1736)

SHERMAN's REFEREE MEREDITH CHARBULA

Bradley Stuart Sherman, 105 E. Church Street, Deland, suspended for one year effective 30 days following a July 22 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1997)

Sherman engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a client resulting in the birth of a child and then later impermissibly used and revealed the information he obtained during the representation to disadvantage the client in a paternity action.

Sherman also engaged in deceptive conduct by pretending to be the client to send messages to the opposing party that was represented by counsel.

Finally, he drafted a motion for the client while the client was acting pro se and failed to put the parties on notice that the motion was prepared with the assistance of counsel.

(Case No: SC20-1550)

5 STAR ATTORNEY JACOB WEIL

Jacob Aaron Weil, 2307 N. Andrews Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, suspended for 30 days and held in contempt effective 30 days following a July 15 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2018)

Jacob Aaron Weil, 2307 N. Andrews Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, suspended for 30 days and held in contempt effective 30 days following a July 15 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2018)

Weil failed to respond to any inquiries from The Florida Bar. The Bar filed a Petition for Contempt and Order to Show Cause. Weil failed to file a response to said Order to Show Cause.

(Case No: SC21-842)

John Parquette White, 1575 Pine Ridge Rd., Suite 10, Naples, admonished effective immediately following a July 1 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1973)

White failed to act with reasonable diligence and failed to communicate with his client in connection with a real estate closing.

(Case No: SC21-880)

WHITE DISCIPLINED BY TAMMY STROHL, ATTORNEY

As an official arm of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the more than 109,000 members of The Florida Bar. Key discipline case files that are public record are posted to attorneys’ individual online Florida Bar profiles. Information on the discipline system and how to file a complaint are available at www.floridabar.org/attorneydiscipline.

Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Attorneys suspended for periods of 91 days and longer must undergo a rigorous process to regain their law licenses including proving rehabilitation. Disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment.

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.



Appellate Circuit

Judge Jill Pryor on a Panel about Judicial Recusals? That’s a Contradiction, Right There.

Judge Cooke has a conflict of interest based on her financial statements, which revealed interests in companies doing business with one of the defendants.

Published

on

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 20-13674
Non-Argument Calendar

JAMES BUCKMAN, MAURICE SYMONETTE,

versus
LANCASTER MORTGAGE CO.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO.,
as Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement series rast 2006-A8,

SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

U.S. TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees,

ONE WEST BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

OCT 7, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 7, 2021

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-24184-MGC

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

James Buckman and Maurice Symonette (“Buckman and Symonette”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their second amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

They argue that the district court erred and demonstrated bias by dismissing their case because they had filed a motion for an additional three-day extension of time and the district court provided a window for responses to the motion by the defendants, but then dismissed the case before the responses were due.1

After review, we affirm.

1 Over four months after filing their notice of appeal from the dismissal of their complaint, Buckman and Symonette filed two motions for recusal of the district court judge, arguing that she had a conflict of interest based on her financial statements, which revealed interests in companies doing business with one of the defendants. (LIF: THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DEUTSCHE BANK)

The district court denied the motions.

Buckman and Symonette did not file an amended or new notice of appeal following entry of that order.

Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the motion for recusal.

See McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1474 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that, although we liberally construe notices of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 to include orders not expressly designated, that allowance does not extend to an order that was not entered when the notice of appeal was filed);

see also LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837–38 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that we lacked jurisdiction over a post-judgment order awarding attorney’s fees where the motion for attorney’s fees was not filed until after the notice of appeal and the plaintiff failed to file an amended notice of appeal from the order awarding fees).

I. Background

In October 2019, Buckman and Symonette filed a pro se 45-page complaint against eight defendants including numerous banks, a mortgage company, the Security and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Treasury, and other entities, raising numerous claims including:

(1) quiet title;
(2) slander of title;
(3) unjust enrichment;
(4) violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;
(5) fraud and concealment;
(6) violation of timely assignment and lack of consideration;
and
(7) various violations of several Florida statutes.

Thereafter, in December 2019, Buckman and Symonette filed a 51-page amended complaint asserting a total of 11 causes of action.

On July 24, 2020, the district court, sua sponte, struck the amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

The district court set forth the pleading rules in its order, and provided that the plaintiffs had until July 31, 2020 to file a second amended complaint.

The district court emphasized that, in the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs are required to make a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Plaintiffs must also state each theory of liability separately “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The newly amended complaint should clearly delineate which factual allegations and cited laws are relevant to the asserted cause of action.

This includes specifying which Defendant is liable under each cause of action and which Defendant is implicated in each factual allegation.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice or other appropriate sanctions.

On July 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of time to file their second amended complaint. The district court granted the motion and ordered that the second amended com- plaint be filed on or before August 6, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking three more days to file their second amended complaint. On the same date, after filing their extension motion, they filed their second amended complaint.

The 92-page second amended complaint added 4 new causes of action and suffered from many of the same issues as the first amended complaint.

On August 17, 2020, the district court dismissed with prejudice the second amended complaint explaining that the second amended complaint “does not cure the defects that required striking of the initial Complaint.”

This appeal followed.2

2 Following the dismissal of their complaint, Buckman and Symonette filed a motion for reconsideration in the district court, which was denied. However, they do not raise any arguments related to the denial of their motion for re- consideration in their brief. Accordingly, the district court’s resolution of the motion for reconsideration is not before us.

II. Discussion

Buckman and Symonette argue that the district court erred and demonstrated bias when it dismissed their case with prejudice while their motion for extension of time was pending.

Specifically, they argue that the district court docketed their motion for a three- day extension of time to file the second amended complaint and set “responses due by 8/20/2020,” but then dismissed the case before that date.

They also raise arguments related to the merits of their underlying claims.

The district court did not err in dismissing the case. On the day the second amended complaint was due, Buckman and Symonette filed the request for a three-day extension of time, but they then filed a second amended complaint the same day.

The filing of the second amended complaint on the day it was due mooted the motion for an extension of time and the related re- sponse period.

Once the second amended complaint was filed, there was nothing left for the district court to do except review the complaint to determine whether the plaintiffs corrected the previously identified pleading issues.

To the extent that Buckman and Symonette’s brief could be liberally construed as challenging the district court’s dismissal of the second-amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading, we review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion.

Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)

(“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”).

“A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.”

Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324.

Rule 8 requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim” demonstrating an entitlement to relief, and Rule 10 requires that a plaintiff “state [his] claims in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 10(b).

Rule 10 further provides that each claim be stated in separate counts “[i]f doing so would promote clarity.” Id. R. 10(b).

We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun pleadings.

See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324; Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).

When a plaintiff files a shotgun pleading, a district court must give him one chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2018).

The district court should explain how the pleading violated the shotgun rule so that the plaintiff can remedy his next pleading.

Id.

Where, as here, the plaintiff is provided fair notice of the specific defects in his complaint and a meaningful chance to fix it but fails to correct the defects, the district court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.

Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice because Buckman and Symonette failed to correct the pleading defects.

Id.

Consequently, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

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

Florida

September was a Monster Month for Fl. Bar Disciplinary Cases. So Much So they Issued Two Separate Lists

On Sep 1, 2021, the Florida Bar Disciplined 10 lawyers and on Sep 15, another 17. That’s 27 lawyers in one month.

Published

on

September Discipline Part II by the Bar

SEP 15, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 6, 2021

The Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 17 attorneys, disbarring six, suspending seven, and reprimanding four. One attorney was also ordered to pay restitution.

Rasheed Karim Allen-Dawson, P.O. Box 135819, Clermont, suspended for 91 days and conditional probation for one year effective 30 days following an August 19 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2011)

Allen-Dawson failed to provide a client with competent representation in a family law matter and pursued frivolous litigation.

Following the filing of the Bar complaint, Allen-Dawson made an impermissible agreement with the complaining client for a full refund conditioned on the client withdrawing the Bar complaint.

In a second matter, Allen-Dawson engaged in a course of conduct where he failed to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, failed to diligently and competently handle multiple client matters, and certified to the court that good-faith conferences had occurred when, in fact, they had not, resulting in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, imposing disciplinary sanctions against him which resulted in 12 months of conditional probation by the Federal Court.

(Case Nos.: SC21-472 and SC21-504)

Referee;

Gerald P. Hill II
Polk County Courthouse
P.O. Box 9000, Drawer J109
Bartow, FL 33831-9000

Charles McCormack Caldwell II, 801 W. Romana St., Suite C, Pensacola, public reprimand by publication and attendance at Ethics School effective immediately following an August 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2010)

Caldwell worked for a Canadian trademark company representing clients in pending trademark applications and issued trademark registrations before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The company’s practice was to enter Caldwell’s electronic signature on trademark documents before filing with the USPTO.

When Caldwell was contacted by the USPTO and advised that he was violating its regulations, he cooperated fully and severed all ties with the trademark company.

The USPTO imposed a public reprimand and 12 months probation.

(Case No: SC21-230)

Joe Luis Castrofort, 1906 E. Robinson St., Orlando, suspended for 60 days with attendance at Ethics School effective 30 days following an August 5 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2001)

Castrofort represented a defendant in a criminal case where the defendant told Castrofort that someone had messaged him, claiming to be the alleged victim, and had requested $15,000 in exchange for her agreement not to testify against him in the case.

At the time, there was a court order that defendant have no contact with the alleged victim.

Castrofort involved private investigators who directed the client to message the alleged victim and have her appear at a designated location to collect the money.

Though there was no actual money involved, the client watched from a distance as the alleged victim entered the client’s unoccupied vehicle and searched for the money.

The client and alleged victim communicated using a messaging application and the private investigators recorded the encounter.

At the time, Castrofort did not fully appreciate that his client’s actions could be viewed as a violation of the no-contact order and expressed remorse for the misconduct.

(Case No: SC21-1100)

Kevin Keenan Chase, 709 Laurel Way, Casselberry, public reprimand by publication effective immediately following an August 6 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1994)

Chase was held in contempt of the Court’s order dated November 12, 2020, for failing to timely comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension.

(Case No: SC21-799)

Andrean Rose Eaton, 2020 N.E. 163rd St., Suite 300, North Miami Beach, suspended for 91 days effective 30 days following an August 6 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1995)

Eaton was held in contempt of the court’s order dated March 5, 2020, for failing to comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel and tribunals of his suspension and for failing to comply with the conditions of her probation.

(Case No: SC21-772)

William Cater Elliott, P.O. Box 43343, Vestavia, Alabama, disbarred effective Nunc pro tunc to January 16, 2020, the date of his felony suspension following a June 17, 2021, court order.

(Admitted to Practice: 1989)

On July 18, 2019, Elliott was convicted of Organized Fraud over $50,000, adjudicated guilty, and sentenced to a two-year prison term followed by eight years’ probation.

Elliott deposited a counterfeit U.S. Treasury check into his law firm business account for $287,000.50, and withdrew a substantial amount, leaving the bank with a financial loss of $98,813.33.

Elliott was felony suspended on January 16, 2020.

After an appeal to the First DCA that was denied, the appellate court issued its mandate in March 2021.

(Case No: SC19-2094)

Michael James Foley, 644 Orange Belt Loop, Winter Garden, suspended for 91 days effective 30 days following an August 19 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2002)

Foley, while employed by Liberty Law Team, failed to exercise reasonable supervision over the paralegal assigned to work on a client’s criminal appeal, allowing the paralegal to engage in impermissible activities such as giving legal advice, and making misrepresentations to the client and the client’s family.

Foley’s failure to supervise further enabled his paralegal to perpetrate a fraud on the client and the client’s family and collect fees and costs that were misappropriated by unknown persons at Liberty Law Team.

(Case No: SC21-311)

Referee:

Michael C. Heisey

Dana Marie Fragakis, 2150 Goodlette Rd. N., FL 6, Naples, suspended for 90 days and attendance at The Florida Bar Professionalism Workshop effective 30 days following an August 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2000)

Fragakis became a candidate for a vacant county court seat in Palm Beach County in June 2016.

During a run-off election, Fragakis hired a campaign manager that promoted her candidacy by making disparaging statements about her opponent in emails, statements to the media, and a webpage.

Fragakis initially defended her campaign’s actions but ultimately admitted that her conduct was a violation of the Judicial Canons and apologized to her opponent.

Fragakis was thereafter removed from judicial office.

(Case No: SC12-1122)

Ronald Andersen Hurst, Jr., P.O. Box 540262, Greenacres, public reprimand by publication effective August 5 by court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2003)

Hurst was court-appointed to file an Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea Agreement on behalf of a criminal defendant.

Hurst made minimal efforts to communicate with the client to determine the basis for the motion. Since Hurst did not receive a response from the client, he did not file the subject motion.

(Case Nos: SC21-1098 and SC21-1100)

Eric Otto Husby, 306 S Blvd., Tampa, suspended for 90 days and directed to attend Ethics School effective 30 days following a July 29 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2004)

Husby neglected his client’s matter and failed to communicate adequately in one matter, and failed to provide competent representation in the second. Husby failed to timely respond to the Bar in the first matter.

(Case No: SC20-1837)

Referee;

Honorable Alicia Polk

Andrew John Jones, 5200 South U.S. Highway 17/92, Casselberry, disbarred immediately following an August 19 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2006)

On June 3, 2021, Jones pled guilty to Child Abuse and Tampering with Physical Evidence, both third-degree felonies.

(Case No: SC21-894)

Referee;

Michael J. McNicholas

Frederick Joseph Keitel III, P.O. Box 3243, Palm Beach, permanently disbarred effective immediately following an August 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1991)

Keitel represented his own corporations in numerous cases during which he made unfounded, unethical, and disparaging attacks against many different judges.

He further engaged in incivility and unprofessionalism in a deposition, attempted to hinder and delay discovery, engaged in a conflict of interest, and violated orders entered by the bankruptcy court.

Keitel continued to engage in such disparaging conduct during the disciplinary proceedings.

(Case No: SC18-546)

John Chandler Ross, 1025 Indian River Ave., Titusville, disbarred effective immediately following an August 5 court order because he is currently suspended.

(Admitted to practice: 1983)

Ross was held in contempt of the court’s order dated November 24, 2020, for failing to comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension.

(Case No: SC21-807)

Roger S. Rathbun, 9380 N.W. 13th St., Plantation, disbarred effective immediately following an August 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2000)

Rathbun continued to engage in the active practice of law after being suspended from the practice of law by order dated January 9, 2020.

(Case No: SC20-623)

Douglas Alan Lopp, 19420 Sandy Springs Cir., Lutz, disbarred effective immediately following an August 11 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1995)

Lopp was held in contempt of the court’s order dated September 20, 2020, for his repeated failure to respond to the court’s previous order and for his failure to notify clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension.

(Case No: SC20-1026 and SC21-852)

Patrick James Thompson, 201 Hilda St., Suite 23, Kissimmee, public reprimand by publication and completion of Ethics School effective immediately following an August 26 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2007)

Thompson negotiated with timeshare resorts on behalf of clients to assist the clients with an exit from their timeshare contracts and/or their timeshare maintenance fees.

Thompson improperly shared legal fees with a nonlawyer, who was a corporate officer of his law firm, Timeshare Lawyers, Inc.

Thompson was not admitted to practice law in any jurisdiction other than Florida but the resorts and the clients he represented sometimes were located outside of Florida.

In addition, Thompson did not sufficiently communicate with two clients about their cases, and he was not diligent in handling their cases.

(Case No: SC21-588)

Peter James Yanowitch, 232 Andalusia Ave., Suite 202, Coral Gables, suspended for 90 days and ordered to pay restitution in the total amount of $100,000 effective 30 days following an August 5 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1982)

Yanowitch failed to maintain cost money in his trust account, instead, he applied it to fees deemed to be excessive, and without providing monthly invoices to the client.

(Case No: SC21-1090)

As an official arm of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the more than 109,000 members of The Florida Bar. Key discipline case files that are public record are posted to attorneys’ individual online Florida Bar profiles. Information on the discipline system and how to file a complaint are available at www.floridabar.org/attorneydiscipline.
Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Attorneys suspended for periods of 91 days and longer must undergo a rigorous process to regain their law licenses including proving rehabilitation. Disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment.

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

Judge Brian Davis of M.D. Fl. Ends Class Action Against Wells Fargo

Judge Davis suggests the “wait and see” approach to claims Wells Fargo fraudulently changed maturity dates on HELOC loans ends this case.

Published

on

Tippett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(5:20-cv-00342)

District Court, M.D. Florida

This is a follow up to LIF’s original article in this case – click here.

SEP 24, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 28, 2021

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 © 2021 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