What got South Florida lawyers in trouble? On list: Mishandling money, abusing court

Five attorneys from Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties are on the Florida Bar’s monthly list of lawyers disciplined by the state Supreme Court.

In alphabetical order:

Richard Chosid, Lighthouse Point

Richard Chosid (admitted to the Bar in 1963) was the Paymaster in a transaction involving his client, John Thompson. When Chosid received $1.4 million, he distributed it as Thompson directed. Problem was, according to Chosid’s guilty plea for consent judgment, the money was supposed to be for “securing a letter of credit for a third party.”

READ MORE: A Broward attorney received $1.4 million. What he did with it got him suspended

For failing in his fiduciary duty by not learning earlier how the money was to be used, Chosid will serve a six-month suspension that starts April 17.

Julio Marrero, Miami

Julio Cesar Marrero (admitted in 1988) was disbarred on Feb. 27, but that doesn’t kick in and he doesn’t get kicked out until Wednesday, March 29. He filed a motion for rehearing with the state Supreme Court on March 8.

As for why Marrero’s disbarred, according to the referee’s report, several parts of the legal system believe Marrero used bankruptcy filings and motions to slow collections or foreclosure actions.

For example, on Oct. 21, 2018, he filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition for Monticello 856. But a foreclosure action and deficiency judgment against Monticello and personal guarantor Omar Hernandez already had this case in post-judgment discovery in state court. OH Capital Collections was collecting the judgment. Hernandez’s mother was going to be deposed on Oct. 22, an event delayed by the bankruptcy petition.

Marrero, the Bar said in its complaint, “previously filed a number of bankruptcy petitions and removal actions related to the same debt at issue in the post judgment collection proceedings referenced above. These had all been dismissed by the bankruptcy court in a number of prior cases. Each of these prior filings coincided with, and obstructed, relevant dates in Capital Collection’s state court post judgment discovery efforts.”

Capital Collections filed to have Marrero’s bankruptcy filing dismissed. The day of the hearing, the Bar complaint says, Marrero claimed a medical procedure prevented his appearance. The referee’s report quotes a furious U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Laurel Isicoff:

“I find that this entity — actually, this law firm — is participating in an abuse of the bankruptcy process, and so it is appropriate to dismiss this case with prejudice for a two-year period, and I so find. Moreover, I am going to separately issue an order to show cause why Mr. Marrero should not be sanctioned, including restricting or terminating his right to appear in bankruptcy court, for filing what appears to be at least this frivolous bankruptcy.”

Isicoff’s opinion was shared by U.S. District Court Chief Judge K. Michael Moore, who referred Marrero to the Court’s Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review and Attorney Grievance over his behavior in two cases. The Bar claimed there were 20 other cases in which Marrero pulled the same “bad faith litigation tactics, gamesmanship and dilatory tactics” as in the two cases Moore cited.

“[Marrero’s] modus operandi is to file a notice of removal without (1) a civil cover sheet, (2) state court records or (3) paying the filing fee,” the Bar alleges. “[Marrero] then does not respond to the court’s order’s to show cause.”

Marrero’s motion asks for a rehearing by claiming the referee decided the case based on a default to the facts as stated in the Bar complaint, a default to which he didn’t agree. He claimed the Bar submitted an agreed motion for default with a material change that required Marrero file an “answer” rather than a “response.” Marrero’s response was a Motion to Dismiss that was rejected.

Marrero said he chose “to limit this Motion to address a single oversight and misapprehension which the Bar and referee have caused, through bad faith tactics and a misleading record, respectively, and which has effectively deprived [Marrero] of his right to a trial on the merits.”

The state Supreme Court has yet to rule on this filing.

Sabine Millien-Felix, West Palm Beach

As general counsel for Tamarac’s Mainlands 3 homeowners’ association, Sabine Millien-Felix (admitted in 2004) filed a complaint against FPL, Power Secure and other entities, then neglected it. Millien-Felix’s guilty plea says “little to no significant action was taken” and it was dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Millien-Felix also neglected to tell Mainlands of her neglect or the dismissal. Power Secure successfully motioned to get its attorney’s fees paid.

Mainlands had fired Millien-Felix, but she still refiled the FPL case. When Power Secure said it was still owed $7,000 in attorney’s fees, the cases got combined. Mainlands agreed to pay Power Secure $16,887 and dismissed the refiled FPL case. Millien-Felix is reimbursing Mainlands for that $16,887 at the rate of $500 monthly payments.

She began her 90-day suspension on March 11.

Joshua Moran, Weston

Two Florida Bar letters, one on Aug. 2 and one on Aug. 24, to Joshua Moran’s (admitted in 2012) Bar address requested a response to a complaint. Neither got answered. Indeed, both letters bounced back as undeliverable. A Sept. 9 letter to the Davie home Moran owns also drew no response as did an email to his registered Bar email address.

“The Grievance Committee found that [Moran] failed to show good cause for failing to respond to the official bar inquiries and that the noncompliance was willful,” the 17th Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee “D” decided in November.

Ghosting the Florida Bar when there’s an official inquiry counts as contempt of court.

Moran’s suspension started March 19 and ends when he fully responds in writing to the Bar’s inquiry.

Susan Torres, Miami

Longtime client Raul Gregorio paid immigration lawyer Susan Torres (admitted in 2011) to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals after his application for cancellation of removal of a non-lawful resident was rejected.

Torres did so, one day before the appeal’s due date. But, her guilty plea says, “the appeal was later returned and rejected due to inclusion of an incorrect alien registration number.”

When the returned paperwork landed at Torres’ office, her assistant grabbed it, made the correction and returned it to the Board of Immigration Appeals without telling Torres. The refiled paperwork was correct but late and “the order of deportation became final.”

Of course, Torres couldn’t tell Gregorio what she didn’t know. Had she known about the problem, she “maintains ... she would have notified her client, preserved the original filing date for the appeal and cured any deficiencies.”

Gregorio is still in the United States while another lawyer deals with his situation. Torres refunded Gregorio his money and has been publicly reprimanded.