News Releases

SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 5 ATTORNEYS

Summaries of orders issued from September 28, 2024, to October 30, 2024

The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announces that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined five attorneys, suspending three, reprimanding one and emergency suspending one.

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 112,000 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 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.

Curtis S. Alva, 200 E. 13th St., Riviera Beach, suspended for one year effective 30 days following an Oct. 17 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1999) Alva entered a written legal representation providing that the client would pay a set hourly rate for attorney time and paralegal time. The client promptly paid all invoices for more than a year. However, when the client delayed sending a payment for several weeks as he questioned Alva about a $25,040 invoice, Alva sent the client a new invoice that unilaterally increased the agreed hourly rates and retroactively billed the client at higher rates from the beginning of the legal representation, for a total of $126,650 There was a zero-balance due after the client paid the $25,040 invoice. Although the written agreement stated that any unapplied retainer funds would be returned to the client when the representation terminated, Alva claimed the client had an outstanding balance in excess of $100,000, made known his intention to bring a collections action against the client, and failed to comply with the client’s demand to return the $25,000 retainer. (Case No. SC2021-1564)

Marc Evan Brown, 6400 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 510, Fort Lauderdale, emergency suspended effective immediately following an Oct. 1 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2006) Brown misappropriated client funds of at least $40,028.46 received for representation of a client who was the lien holder in a foreclosure matter. Brown was to hold the funds in trust as escrow agent and to file an interpleader action in the event the underlying matter could not be resolved. No funds were applied to the interpleader and Brown made misrepresentations to the client regarding the status of the interpleader. Additionally, Brown failed to produce all required subpoenaed trust records and procedures. (Case No. SC2024-1394)

Theodore Mark Cooperstein, 1888 Main St., Suite C, Madison, MS, public reprimand effective 30 days following an Oct. 18 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2012) This is a reciprocal discipline action, based on the Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion and Judgment, dated August 1, 2023. This order was based on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Order, dated July 7, 2022. The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) initiated an investigation into allegations of professional misconduct that arose out of three court hearings in different federal criminal matters before U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves during which Cooperstein, in response to direct questions from the court, stated or indicated that he was vaccinated against COVID-19 when he was not. Cooperstein was found to have violated Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c). Cooperstein received a public reprimand and professionalism workshop. (Case No. SC24-0607)

Scott N. Gelfand, 5491 N. University Dr., Suite 204, Coral Springs, suspended for 10 days and a public reprimand effective 30 days following a Sept. 19 court order. (Admitted to practice: 2002) In one matter, Gelfand consulted with a potential client about filing suit against a corporation. The potential client discussed the case with Gelfand, gave Gelfand’s firm a flash drive containing documents he intended to remain confidential, and exchanged emails with Gelfand after the consultation with additional queries. Ultimately, the potential client did not hire Gelfand. Thereafter, Gelfand entered an appearance in the same matter, representing the corporation. Gelfand did not believe there was a conflict but was later disqualified from representing the corporation. In a second matter, Gelfand contracted for a pre-trial suit contingency fee over 33 1/3% in a personal injury matter, leading to a dispute over the amount of fees owed. (Case No. SC2023-0896)

Joseph P. George, Jr., 9655 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 112, Miami, suspended for three years effective 30 days following an Oct. 10 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1994) George was appointed as representative for an elderly couple with cognitive disabilities. While acting as the couple’s estate planning attorney, George prepared paperwork naming himself as the sole beneficiary of the couple’s investment joint bank account. George was discharged by the court and the beneficiary designation was ultimately revoked. (Case No. SC23-1726)

###