An elderly couple’s $2 million involved in suspensions of Miami to Palm Beach lawyers
In explaining why four South Florida attorneys were suspended by the state Supreme Court last month, you'd run across an attempted overbilling of $100,000, a $2 million bank account and $40,000 of possibly misappropriated funds.
In alphabetical order....
Curtis Alva, West Palm Beach
According to the referee's report, Daniel McCool, president of car paint repair company Dr. ColorChip, hired West Palm Beach's Curtis Alva (admitted to the Florida Bar in 1999) in September 2016 to handle a company dispute.
Dr. ColorChip would pay $400 per hour for Alva's time, $100 per hour for paralegal time and, If litigation was required, a $25,000 monthly retainer due within 10 days of billing. After 10 days, that retainer would be applied to unpaid invoices. The unapplied retainer would be refunded after Alva finished his work for Dr. ColorChip. All changes to this agreement had to be in writing and signed by both sides.
All went well until the December 2017 invoice that Alva sent on Jan. 9, 2018, billing $25,040 for 66.8 hours of work. McCool emailed Alva on Feb. 5, 2018, that Dr. ColorChip needed to review the bill. McCool told an employee to review it. The employee emailed seven questions about the December 2017 invoice to Alva on Feb. 16, then sent a followup email on Feb. 21 when she didn't get an answer.
Alva sent a Feb. 21 email saying, the referee's report said, he'd answer the questions if they were being asked in good faith and if Dr. ColorChip paid $18,240 toward the December invoice. Otherwise, Alva stated according to the referee's report, "he would not believe they were questioning the bill in good faith.
"He also informed the clients that he would either enforce the contract as written and seek the $25,040 or charge the clients a higher rate which would result in a $125,000 bill," the state Supreme Court said. "[Alva] warned that if he believed there was no good faith on the clients' part, he would make a claim for bad faith misrepresentation, and punitive damages, seeking treble damages in the amount of $375,000."
A Feb. 26 invoice from Alva billed $126,650, billing an extra $150 per hour for his time and $25 per hour for paralegal time for all the 1,032.5 hours spent on Dr. ColorChip.
"The effect of this bill was to retroactively and unilaterally increase the hourly rate, above that in the engagement letter, for all the work [Alva's] firm previously performed and for which the clients had previously paid," the state Supreme Court said. "The engagement letter between the parties did not provide for this penalty."
Dr. ColorChip paid the December 2017 invoice, but Alva insisted the company still owed $101,834. The state Supreme Court said Alva argued that not paying the December 2017 invoice within 10 days of getting it opened the door to him demanding "restitution in the form of retroactive hourly billing..."
The court said, "We disagree. While restitution is an available remedy for breach of contract, the proper place to seek such a remedy is in civil court."
Alva was found to have violated Bar rules for fees and costs for legal services; misconduct; violating or attempting to violate rules of professional conduct.
Alva's one-year suspension starts on Nov. 16.
Marc Brown, Fort Lauderdale
Monday's Miami Herald story detailed the case of Fort Lauderdale attorney Marc Brown (admitted in 2006), who admitted he fibbed about making a filing for a client, but denied misappropriating $40,000 of the client's money. His emergency suspension began Oct. 1.
READ MORE: Fort Lauderdale attorney denies Ponzi scheme-like conduct and misappropriating $40,000
Scott Gelfand, Coral Springs
The first two ethics issues involving Coral Springs attorney Scott Gelfand since his 2002 admission to the Florida Bar concerned a flash drive and a fee disagreement in which Gelfand returned the disputed amount to a client and changed his retainer agreement to prevent any future misunderstandings.
The flash drive belonged to Cale Beckman, who left the drive with confidential documents in Gelfand's office after a consultation. Beckman was considering hiring Gelfand for a lawsuit against Duck Eye LLC.
Beckman eventually chose Fort Lauderdale lawyer Leah Mayersohn. Duck Eye chose Gelfand. When Mayersohn emailed Gelfand about the conflict of interest, Gelfand, his guilty plea stated, "replied that there was no conflict."
Mayersohn filed a motion to disqualify. An affidavit from Gelfand declared he never got into the flash drive because Beckman never hired him. Nonetheless, the motion was granted. Gelfand sent the flash drive back to Beckman, and Beckman sent the flash drive to a forensic examiner.
The examiner said, yes, someone had accessed the flash drive and several times. In an evidentiary hearing, Gelfand insisted he'd never gone into the flash drive. Gelfand's paralegal said she'd gone into it "after reaching into her drawer to get a flash drive for another matter."
Gelfand received a public reprimand and a 10-day suspension, which ended Oct. 29.
Joseph George, Pinecrest
After married senior citizens Larry Larsen and Nancy Crooks were found living in "terrible, dangerous conditions" in June 2021, taken involuntarily from their home and Baker Act-ed, the couple's best friend hired Joseph George (admitted in 1994) to represent them. As the designated "responsible party," George would work with the Department of Children & Families protective services.
The couple gave George durable power of attorney. He got them moved from Merceditas Home Care, run out of a Shenandoah house, to Homestead's upscale Palace Gardens assisted living facility. He managed their day-to-day care, including helping with their finances. In that process, the address on a joint back account from American Century Investments got changed to his Pinecrest office.
In October 2021, while working on estate planning with Crooks and Larsen, George told Crooks there was the chance the money in the American Century Investments account would transfer to the state of Florida if Crooks and Larsen died and the account was determined to be abandoned. This is called an "escheatment."
"Ms. Crooks indicated that [George] should be identified as the transfer on death beneficiary," George's guilty plea said. "Although [George] did not suggest he be named as a beneficiary, he did not decline the designation either nor counsel his clients that this results in a conflict of interest."
The best friend signed a sworn statement that, based on talking daily with Crooks, the couple weren't pressured and knew what they were doing. But, George's guilty plea admits, he "should have declined the beneficiary designation."
When ACI received the signed beneficiary designation naming George as the sole beneficiary of the account, the bank's staff noted that George wasn't identified as their attorney, but rather as a "friend." ACI staff might not have known George had known the couple only two months, but they knew the account's value exceeded $2 million.
"Shortly thereafter DCF received an exploitation report regarding respondent's clients," George's guilty plea said.
A DCF investigation, the guilty plea said, found the couple was "suffering from cognitive decline" and George admitted they knew their "memories were far from perfect."
Their doctor said they couldn't handle their personal affairs. Another attorney was appointed to deal with that and their care. George's beneficiary designation was revoked.
The referee, 11th Circuit Judge William Thomas, took into account that the 69-year-old George hadn't had any disciplinary issues before, that he showed remorse and had been fully cooperative during the process.
But, Thomas also felt George acted with a "dishonest or selfish motive" on vulnerable victims and should've known better after decades of practice.
Thomas recommended a three-year suspension, which the state Supreme Court accepted. George's suspension starts Saturday.
