11 Lawyers Disciplined By Florida Supreme Court
 |
| Florida Courtroom. Credit: U.S. General Services Administration |
The Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 11 attorneys, revoking the license of two, suspending six, admonishing one, and reprimanding two.
Joseph Lester Boles, Jr., 19 Riberia St., St. Augustine, disciplinary revocation with leave to apply for readmission in five years effective 30 days following a May 30 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1984)
Boles engaged in a course of conduct in which he would provide a free will to persons over the age of 65 and draft the documents, naming himself as the personal representative or successor trustee to potentially receive fees as part of the estate or trust. Boles also failed to follow the instructions of several testamentary documents while serving as the trustee and sold a decedent’s home to his daughter allegedly for lower than fair market value.
Alexander Iglesias Brutvan, 22075 Flower Dr., Boca Raton, admonishment and referral to Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., effective immediately following a June 14 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2015)
Brutvan was charged by information with one count of possession of a controlled substance. Brutvan’s case was after the successful completion of a pretrial intervention agreement with the State of Florida.
Erik Russel Fenniman, P.O. Box 1634, Tallahassee, suspended for 90 days and ordered to attend ethics school and professionalism workshop effective 30 days following a June 6 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2003)
During his tenure as general counsel for the Florida Department of Transportation, Fenniman signed the names of two of his subordinate employees to official agency letters without their knowledge or consent. One of the employees had already terminated her employment with FDOT several weeks prior to this occurrence.
Lisa Jacobs, 20401 NE 30th Ave., Apt. 318, Aventura, suspended for one year, effective immediately following a May 29 court order, as Jacobs was already suspended. (Admitted to practice: 1999)
Jacobs was held in contempt for failing to comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of her suspension as well as failure to eliminate all indicia of the appearance of being a lawyer in good standing. (Case No. SC24-0532)
Jaquetta Johnson, 1700 N. Monroe St., #11-224, Tallahassee, public reprimand and trust account workshop, effective June 30, one month after a May 30 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2014)
Complainant hired Florida Community Law Center (FCLC) to collect debts owed by debtors. Johnson was the only attorney engaged to provide legal services. Complainant forwarded several debt collection files between January 2020 and November 2020 for a flat fee of $1,650 for each debt collection matter that was resolved prior to litigation and costs. When Johnson received funds on behalf of complainant from debtors, per the retainer agreement, FCLC’s fees were taken out and any remaining balance was sent to complainant.
During the representation, complainant and respondent were in dispute about what fees and costs were due and owing. On October 27, 2020, Johnson sent complainant a check in the amount of $2,681, for funds obtained on his behalf. The check bounced due to insufficient funds. FCLC was dissolved in April 2022. FCLC did not have an IOTA trust account registered with The Florida Bar Foundation. As a result, attorneys fees and client funds were commingled.
Theophilos John Karaphillis, 131 Bluff View Dr., Apt. 104, Belleair Bluffs, suspended effective 30 days following a May 30 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1988)
Following an order to show cause, Karaphillis was held in contempt and suspended until he fully responds in writing to an official Bar inquiry and until further order of the court.
Karaphillis also failed to file a response to the court’s Order to Show Cause.
John M. Mavroudis, 411 Hackensack Ave., Suite 200, Hackensack, NJ, suspended for one year effective immediately following a May 30 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1972)
This is a reciprocal discipline action, based on the Decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey Disciplinary Board dated January 31, 2023, which imposed a one-year suspension. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Mavroudis made misrepresentations to the court in a hearing in which he was a party and represented by counsel regarding the removal of personal property and its value.
Emelike Nwosuocha, 14265 SW 181st Ter., Miami, suspended for one year effective immediately following a June 18 court order, as Nwosuocha is currently suspended. (Admitted to practice: 2008)
Nwosuocha was held in contempt for failing to comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel and tribunals of his suspension.
Laitil Ovincy, 6150 Arcade Ct., Lake Worth, public reprimand by publication and completion of both The Florida Bar’s Ethics School and Professionalism Workshop, effective 30 days following a June 13 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2014)
In two separate immigration proceedings, Ovincy neglected cases and failed to properly communicate with his clients.
Guichard St. Surin, 1919 Courtney Dr., Suite 16, Ft. Myers disciplinary revocation with leave to apply for readmission in five years effective 30 days following a May 30 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2011)
In three pending cases, St. Surin was alleged to have engaged in inappropriate, unwanted sexual behavior and harassment with four employees and a client, failed to diligently and competently pursue a family law matter, and self-reported that he had been charged with felony battery which remained pending. St. Surin pled no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge regarding contact with the client.
The pending felony charge concerned allegations St. Surin engaged in inappropriate, unwanted sexual behavior with a prospective client.
David W. Veliz, 630 N. Wymore Rd., Suite 330, Maitland, suspended for 10 days, effective 30 days following a June 6 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1990)
Veliz prepared a will and other estate planning documents for a longtime family friend. The will impermissibly named Veliz’s mother and sister as beneficiaries and named his mother as the personal representative for the estate.
Veliz failed to recognize that he was prohibited from creating a will for a non-related client naming his relatives as beneficiaries.
After the death of the family friend, Veliz’s law partner was hired by Veliz’s mother to represent her in probating the estate. Veliz’s mother received her personal representative fee even though Veliz failed to comply with a statute regarding the disclosure of compensation for the personal representative.
Ultimately, Veliz’s mother and sister were removed as beneficiaries and his mother refunded her personal representative fee to the estate.
SIMILAR STORIES:
