Omar Javier Arcia, 3350 S.W. 148th Ave., Suite 110, Miramar, suspended for 91 days effective 30 days following a January 11 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1995) Arcia engaged in a pattern of representing both co-lenders and borrowers in foreclosure matters without disclosing the potential conflict of interest or attempting to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of the conflict from those clients. In another matter, Arcia filed an improper lien against a property for refusal to remit a real estate commission resulting in a waste of judicial resources and a delay in the sale of the property. (Case No. SC23-0413)
Odiator Arugu, 1540 Whooping Dr., Groveland, disbarred effective immediately following a January 8 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1995) Arugu continued engaging in the practice of law after the effective date of his 91-day suspension. Arugu failed to close out his practice and protect the interests of his clients before the effective date of his suspension. He also communicated with a client and gave her legal advice while suspended, failed to move to withdraw from two pending cases, and remained counsel of record after the effective date of his suspension in these cases. Arugu failed to advise the client of a hearing, resulting in a dismissal being entered against the client. As a result, Arugu was held in contempt and disbarred. (Case No. SC23-1374)
Frank Carvajal, 1665 E. 4th St., Suite 104, Santa Ana, CA, public reprimand effective 30 days following a January 25 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1995) Carvajal represented a client in removal proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In 2019, the client hired Carvajal to appeal the BIA’s decision. Carvajal filed the appeal pro se, even though he previously filed Form EOIR-26 signifying his appearance as attorney of record and indicating that he would file a brief. Carvajal failed to timely file a brief, and the case was dismissed without a review. (Case No. SC23-1193)
Lisa M. Dawson, 149 S. Ridgewood Ave., Suite 310, Daytona Beach, public reprimand and ordered to attend Ethics School effective immediately following a January 4 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2006). Dawson neglected a client’s family law matter and failed to properly withdraw from the representation. Dawson also failed to inform the client that she closed her private law practice. The court dismissed the client’s case, citing a lack of record activity or appearances. (Case No. SC23-0998)
Paul DeCailly, P.O. Box 17793, Clearwater, suspended until such time as DeCailly fully responds in writing to the official Bar inquiry, effective 30 days following a January 25 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2004) DeCailly failed to respond to official Bar inquiries and the Florida Supreme Court’s Order to Show Cause. On January 25, the court issued an order granting The Florida Bar’s Petition for Contempt and Order Show Cause, suspending DeCailly from the practice of law until he fully responds in writing to the Bar’s inquiry. (Case No. SC23-1653)
Glenn Burdette Grevengoed, 3730 7th Terrace, Vero Beach, public reprimand effective immediately following a January 11 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2004) The court held Grevengoed in contempt for failing to timely respond to The Florida Bar’s subpoena requesting trust account records. (Case No. SC23-1378)
John Spencer Jenkins, 101 N.E. 3rd Ave, Suite 1500, Ft. Lauderdale, emergency suspension effective immediately following a January 9 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2012) Jenkins represented the personal representative of an estate. Jenkins has misappropriated over $400,000 in estate funds by removing those funds from the trust account without authorization and using those entrusted funds for purposes not intended by the estate. (Case No. SC2024-0022)
Ryan M. Layton, 101 North J St., Lake Worth, suspended until further order of the Court, effective 30 days following a January 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2002) The Florida Bar filed a petition for contempt and order to show cause after Layton failed to respond to the Bar’s investigative inquiries. Subsequently, Layton failed to respond to the Florida Supreme Court’s order to show cause, and the court entered an order suspending him until such time as he responds to the Bar’s investigative inquiries and until further order of the court. (Case No. SC2023-1672)
Hubbell Clay Losson, 701 77th Ave. North, #55640, St. Petersburg, held in contempt of court and suspended from the practice of law until he fully responds in writing to the official Bar inquiry and until further order of the court, effective 30 days following a January 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2002) Losson failed to respond to an official Bar inquiry in Florida Bar File No. 2023-10,297(13E). The Florida Bar filed a Petition for Contempt and Order to Show Cause on November 20, 2023, and the Florida Supreme Court ordered Losson to show cause by December 6, 2023. Losson failed to file a response to the court’s Order to Show Cause. Losson has been held in contempt of court and is ordered to be suspended until he fully responds in writing to the official Bar inquiry and until further order of the court. (Case No. SC23-1604)
Ronald Stuart Lubetsky, 220 S.W. Natura Ave., Deerfield Beach, disciplinary revocation with leave to apply for readmission in five years, effective immediately following a December 14, 2023, court order. (Admitted to practice: 2002) Lubetsky was found guilty on seven counts of knowingly and intentionally dispensing a controlled substance without authorization by law, five counts involving oxycodone and two counts involving oxycodone and morphine. Thereafter, Lubetsky was sentenced to 60 months in prison. On September 7, the Bar filed a Notice of Determination of Judgment of Guilt, and the court issued an order suspending Lubetsky from the practice of law on same date. On October 26, Lubetsky filed a Petition for Disciplinary Revocation with Leave to Apply for Readmission. (Case No. SC2023-1484)
Rafael Antonio Perez, 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 300, Coral Gables, disciplinary revocation with leave to apply for readmission effective 30 days following a December 28, 2023, court order. (Admitted to practice: 1987) A client retained Perez to represent him in a commercial loan transaction. Rather than proceed with the transaction as directed, Perez engaged in delaying the transaction, failed to follow client’s instructions, and failed to return client’s monies from his trust account upon demand. (Case No. SC23-1575)
Jacob Aaron Weil, 2307 N. Andrews Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission after five years, effective immediately following a December 21, 2023, court order. (Admitted to practice: 2018) Weil filed a Petition for Disciplinary Revocation with Leave to Apply for Readmission based upon allegations that included abandoning clients and his failure to account for and misuse of client trust funds. (Case No. SC2023-1228)
Emily Christine Williams, 2411 Cold Stream Ln., Green Cove Springs, suspended for 91 days effective February 12, 2024, following a January 11 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2009) Williams engaged in misconduct involving incompetence, inadequate communication with clients, and lack of diligence in family law and guardianship cases. Williams also entered a plea of no contest on a misdemeanor criminal charge. As a result, the court, in an order dated January 11, suspended Williams. (Case No. SC22-1778)
The Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Division of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the more than 111,000 members of The Florida Bar. Key discipline case files that are public record are posted to attorneys’ individual online Florida Bar profiles. To view discipline documents, follow these steps. 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
reapply 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.
Full Article & Source:
February 1, 2024 Disciplinary Actions
No comments:
Post a Comment