Palmetto lawyers struck out when they gave baseball tickets to judge in their case, ruling says

A judge is recommending that the Florida Supreme Court discipline Melton Little and Scott Kallins for giving baseball tickets to a former judge while presiding over one of their cases, by placing them on probation for one year. Tiffany Tompkins

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article211812449.html#storylink=cpy

A judge has recommended to the Florida Supreme Court that two Palmetto-based attorneys be punished for giving free Tampa Bay Rays tickets to a judge who was presiding over one of their cases.

Scott Kallins and Melton Little, who is running for the Manatee County Commission District 4 seat, could face discipline as severe as disbarment.

The judge who heard evidence about their misconduct, however, recommended one year of probation and that they be required to speak about their wrongdoing in front of other attorneys.

The two attorneys are partners at the Palmetto-based firm of Kallins Little Delgado. The firm's well-known slogan "We Play Hardball" is featured in television commercials showing both attorneys and their third partner. Jim Delgado, carrying baseball bats.

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article211812449.html#storylink=cpy

The Florida Bar filed ethics complaints against both attorneys with the Florida Supreme Court in March 2017 after their own investigation of what happened. The Bar found Kallins and Little had created an appearance of impropriety by offering and giving Rays tickets to former Circuit Judge John Lakin while he was presiding over one of their cases. The attorneys had also called into question Lakin's impartiality, the Bar found.

Circuit Judge Archie B. Hayworth Jr., from the 20th Judicial Circuit and appointed by the Florida Supreme Court to act as a referee in the matter, presided over a three-day-long trial that ended April 26. On Tuesday, Hayworth issued his recommendation to the Supreme Court.

Kallins and Little should be found guilty of misconduct, Hayworth recommended, and each should be given an admonishment and be placed on probation for one year.

"While respondents are veteran attorneys who should have known better, and their conduct created an appearance of impropriety that could have damaged the public perception of judicial impartiality, there was no evidence presented of actual prejudice to the underlying case," Hayworth stated in the order.

A call from comment to Kallins and Little for comment has not yet been returned.

The underlying case at the center of this is a civil suit filed by Sandy Wittke — represented by the law firm Kallins Little & Delgado — in August 2012 in which she claimed that Wal-Mart was at fault when she slipped and fell in December 2009 at the store at 5315 Cortez Road W., Bradenton.

The jury in the case, presided over by Lakin, ruled in favor of Wal-Mart but Lakin later granted Kallins Little & Delgado’s motion for a new trial on Wittke’s behalf. Wal-Mart appealed Lakin’s decision and in October 2016 the Second District Court of Appeals reversed his decision and reinstated the jury’s verdict.

Lakin was facing a formal charge of misconduct from the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission at the time, and in March 2016 he resigned. Lakin has since returned to private practice and is also facing an ethics compliant from the Florida Bar. His trial is scheduled to begin Wednesday.

During last month's trial, Kallins and Little expressed remorse and admitted their actions were wrong, Hayworth noted. Evidence presented at trial regarding their character was found compelling, and the judge found that their public service and charitable work in the community would be hindered or eliminated if the two attorneys were suspended.

Given their reputations, Hayworth found that it would be more effective discipline to require both attorneys to speak about the incident before new attorneys at required continuing education programs and to veteran attorneys at one more or conferences about how to avoid similar misconduct.

Based on Hayworth's recommendation, both attorneys could be ordered to pay $5,300 in fees.

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article211812449.html#storylink=cpy

Full Article & Source:
Palmetto lawyers struck out when they gave baseball tickets to judge in their case, ruling says

Lawyer who hired embezzling felon is disbarred after failing to notice theft of nearly $5M

The Florida Supreme Court has disbarred a lawyer who hired a felon with an embezzlement history and then put the employee in charge of administering the law firm’s trust account.

The employee embezzled $4.8 million from the law firm over a four-year period, according to the Florida Supreme Court opinion disbarring Randall Lawrence Gilbert. The Daily Business Review, the Legal Profession Blog and Law360 covered the March 22 decision.

A judge who served as the referee in the ethics case had found that Gilbert was “curiously uncurious” about Steven Sacks’ criminal past and claims of expertise. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with that assessment. “Indeed, this case gives new meaning to the phrase ‘turning a blind eye,’ ” the supreme court said.

Gilbert had hired Sacks as a bookkeeper in February 2005 after a referral from a friend. During the interview, Gilbert learned that Sacks was living in a halfway house after a federal wire fraud conviction. Sacks said he was a disbarred New York attorney and a certified public accountant.

Yet Gilbert didn’t check out those claims or the reason for the purported disbarment, and didn’t investigate Sacks’ criminal history, according to the opinion. In reality, Sacks was never a New York lawyer and was not a CPA. If Gilbert had investigated Sacks’ conviction, he would have learned Sacks went to prison after embezzling more than $7 million, the Florida Supreme Court said.

In an April 2005 meeting with Sacks’ probation officer, Gilbert signed a form acknowledging the risk of hiring Sacks. The form stated that Sacks had been ordered to pay $7.9 million in restitution. The probation officer told Gilbert he didn’t think it was appropriate for Sacks to work at a law firm given his criminal history.

Five months after he was hired, Sacks forged Gilbert’s signature on a check for nearly $21,000 that was used to pay for cosmetic surgery for Sacks’ girlfriend. Gilbert fired Sacks, but refused to tell the probation officer why. Gilbert sent Sacks to therapy and rehired him in October 2005.

Sacks carried business cards identifying himself as a JD and a CPA. Gilbert eventually gave Sacks “full rein” over the real-estate closing side of his practice, which grew exponentially after the mortgage foreclosure crisis in 2008, the opinion said. He also named Sacks the firm’s chief financial officer.

Sacks would transfer money deposited into the firm’s trust account that was intended to pay off mortgages on client properties, then transferred the properties to a shell company, called SQWERTY, that he created to keep the mortgages alive with monthly payments.

Randall Lawrence Gilbert

Gilbert said he reviewed financial reconciliations prepared by Sacks, and looked at the first and last page of bank account statements. Sacks handled law firm trust account matters and prepared information for the law firm’s CPA.

The scheme was discovered in February 2014 when Gilbert received a call from a lawyer asking why a mortgage for the lawyer’s client was kept alive when it should have been satisfied.

The firm’s title insurer had to pay more than $3.6 million in claims and was the largest victim of the wrongdoing.

Gilbert himself lost $1 million when Sacks did not pay off the mortgage on Gilbert’s home in a refinancing. Gilbert has also paid about $1.03 million to individuals who lost money as a result of Sacks’ thefts.

The referee had recommended a two-year suspension, followed by two years on disciplinary probation.

Gilbert did not immediately respond to a message left with his former firm by the ABA Journal.

Full Article & Source:
Lawyer who hired embezzling felon is disbarred after failing to notice theft of nearly $5M

Milton attorney reprimanded for charging exorbitant fees

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that Milton attorney Jennifer Byrom be publicly reprimanded after it found the attorney charged excessive fees for a 10-year-long probate case.

The matter began in 1998 when Byrom’s future client, a widow, consulted her on her husband’s estate, requesting assistance with handling the $1.5 million estate. In July 1998, Byrom took guardianship, but she did not extend guardianship to the widow in petitions filed with the courts.

It was at this time when the attorney began to charge exorbitant hourly rates. According to court documents, Byrom charged between $60 and $85 per hour for any work performed by her staff and between $180 and $250 per hour for work she completed done. She charged the widow for both guardianship and legal services, even though she was only entitled to charge for performing the latter.

Additionally, Byrom charged incidentals to the account such as her food and travel expenses. All of her expenses were approved by the courts.

After 10.5 years of service, the widow’s daughter filed for and was granted guardianship, but Byrom had already racked up charges totaling $400,000 during her time as guardian.

After reviewing the facts of the case, including the court approvals and signatures from the widow and her children approving the activities charged, the Supreme Court determined that discipline was warranted. Byrom will to be publicly reprimanded in the Referee and will be required to take 15 hours of continuing legal education in guardianship and 15 hours in guardianship, probate and/or estate planning.

The family law attorney was admitted to the Florida State Bar in 1985 and is a graduate of the Samford University Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. She had no prior record of discipline in the state.

Full Article & Source:
Milton attorney reprimanded for charging exorbitant fees

Marriage Annulment in Guardianship Case Heads to Florida Supreme Court

Glenda Martinez Smith has already made an important impact on adult guardianship of incapacitated seniors in the state of Florida.

The court appeal she won in March 2015 told judges in six Florida counties they could no longer ignore pre-need directives by seniors about who they want as their health care surrogate and pre-need guardian if they become incapacitated.

But Martinez Smith is not done yet.

She is heading to the Florida Supreme Court and aims once again to overturn Circuit Judge David French, who made the unusual move to annul her 2011 marriage to J. Alan Smith at the behest of a court-appointed professional guardian and the guardian’s attorney.

The 4th District Court of Appeal on June 29 certified “a question of great public importance:” to the state’s highest court on whether incapacitated individuals can retain one of the most sacred of American rights.

“It involves the fundamental right of a ward to marry,” said Jennifer Carroll, the Palm Beach Gardens attorney who represents Martinez Smith. “When and under what circumstances does a ward have to get the court’s approval before exercising his fundamental right to marry?”

Jennifer Caroll

An annulment can be a cash cow for a guardian and the attorney who represents him or her. The Post reported in its series Guardianship: A Broken Trust how annulment proceedings initiated by a guardian can drain the estate of the senior and cost loved ones tens of thousands of dollars in court fees fighting it.

A marriage annulment in guardianship can affect benefits for the surviving partner after the incapacitated senior dies and cause great emotional pain for the couple. Martinez Smith contends that the annulment was designed so that the guardian and his attorney could drain as much money from her husband’s accounts, as possible.

Martinez Smith, who was financially secure long before she met Smith, said she spent upwards of $150,000 form her own money fighting the guardianship and reversing decisions made by Palm Beach Circuit judges. Her husband, she said, was left personally bankrupt as the guardian liquidated life insurance policies.

She got no relief from the judges. Circuit Judge Martin Colin threw her out of the courtroom. He also insulted her looks. The 4th DCA on April 3, 2013 granted her petition to disqualify Colin.

The court concluded “that the judge’s acts of ejecting petitioner from the courtroom, later striking her testimony on the basis of a perceived insult to him, and his comment that petitioner’s entire demeanor, including that ‘her face, her voice, her sound, may be unpleasant to everyone else,’ save the ward, would lead any reasonably prudent person to fear that she would not receive a fair hearing before the judge.”

Martinez Smith didn’t know at the time that Colin’s wife, Elizabeth “Betsy” Savitt, worked as a professional guardian. Colin announced his retirement after The Post’s Broken Trust series reported on the judge’s conflict of interest and the litany of complaints orbiting his wife’s guardianships. Colin was transferred out of the guardianship division then announced his retirement.

Full Article and Source:
Marriage Annulment in Guardianship Case Heads to Florida Supreme Court

See Also:
NASGA:  J. Alan Smith, FL

Florida Supreme Court Suspends Miami-Dade Judge

MIAMI (CBSMiami/NSF) – The Florida Supreme Court suspended a Miami-Dade County judge after two incidents last month in which she appeared impaired — including an incident in which she had to be removed from the bench and driven home by a bailiff.

On Tuesday, an order handed down suspended Judge Jacqueline Schwartz with pay, according to the Supreme Court’s website.

An investigative panel had recommended the suspension to the Florida Supreme Court.

The allegations against Schwartz came four months after she was disciplined by the Supreme Court for a 2014 incident in which she was accused of using profanity and threatening to sue a convenience-store owner who had declined to allow her to display a campaign sign at the store.

In the new case, an investigative panel of the state Judicial Qualifications Commission said Schwartz was observed “acting in an irrational and disorderly manner” on March 18th at a Coconut Grove restaurant. One of the documents said Schwartz “was observed to be impaired, spilling a glass of wine on herself, and pouring water on the floor of the restaurant while attempting to refill a water glass. Patrons, and staff also observed Schwartz to be unsteady on her feet, swaying, stumbling, slurring her words, and (having) twitching eyes.

When the restaurant staff decided that they should no longer provide wine to Schwartz, she became upset, and began yelling and swearing at the wait-staff in full view of the restaurant guests.”

When police arrived, the judge allegedly called them “pigs” who couldn’t do anything to her because she was a judge.

Schwartz reported the incident to the Judicial Qualifications Commission on March 21st. A week later, the investigative panel said, Schwartz appeared impaired while presiding over a criminal traffic docket. The chief judge became involved and sent her home, with the assistance of a bailiff who drove Schwartz’s car.

During a hearing, Schwartz attributed her conduct to a prescription medication she had started taking, according to the documents.

The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to discipline judges. In December, Schwartz received a public reprimand from the Supreme Court, which also imposed a $10,000 fine on the judge and suspended her from the bench for 30 days.

“This is misconduct we cannot and will not tolerate,” said Chief Justice Jorge Labarga during the December hearing.

Along with allegations about the 2014 convenience-store incident, Schwartz also was accused of improperly handling papers in a court file.

The News Service of Florida last year found that the number of judges facing sanctions had jumped and that the high court was more often seeking harsher penalties than those originally proposed by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Judge Schwartz will face the equivalent of a public trial before the Judicial Qualifications Commission in Miami-Dade County. The commission will then recommend a punishment to the Florida Supreme Court.

Full Article & Source:
Florida Supreme Court Suspends Miami-Dade Judge

Email To Attorney Could Lead To Discipline Of Broward Judge

(Credit: Thinkstock)

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) – A Broward County circuit judge could face disciplinary action after a series of events that stemmed from an email to an assistant public defender.

The state Judicial Qualifications Commission, which investigates possible wrongdoing by judges, found probable cause for charges against Broward Circuit Judge John Contini.

The issue started with a March 16th email sent by Contini sent to an assistant public defender and later disclosed to prosecutors. The email, which included a sentencing order from another court, was viewed by prosecutors as an offer by Contini of research and drafting assistance to the public defender’s office. As a result, the state sought a disqualification against Contini and ultimately took the issue to the 4th District Court of Appeal, according to the filings this week.

During the appeal, a stay was placed on hundreds of cases.

“As a result, many of the cases before your (Contini’s) division were effectively frozen, and defendants who were incarcerated had to remain behind bars because you were unable to make any rulings or determinations in their case,” the Judicial Qualifications Commission said.

The commission also alleged that Contini violated judicial canons “by exhibiting discourteous, impatient, and undignified conduct during in-court discussions” of the appeal. In part, Contini is alleged to have described a position of the Attorney General’s Office, which handled the appeal, as a “lie from the pit of hell,” according to the filings.

The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority in deciding whether to discipline judges.

Full Article & Source:
Email To Attorney Could Lead To Discipline Of Broward Judge