Miami Attorney Suspended for 1 Year for Soliciting Clients
The Florida Supreme rejected a referee's suggestion for a more lenient punishment, and opted instead for a one-year suspension.
October 05, 2017 at 03:46 PM
4 minute read
The Florida Supreme Court Thursday rejected a referee's recommendation of six months' suspension of Miami attorney Arturo Dopazo III, found guilty of participating in a “patient-client recruiting scheme” with a nonlawyer.
Instead the high court, which has the final word on attorney discipline, imposed a harsher sentence: one year's suspension for the lawyer, who'd faced prior disciplinary action for solicitation.
The case against Dopazo, which stemmed from an FBI tip to the Florida Bar, comes as federal investigators undertake a sweeping probe of South Florida personal injury attorneys. The investigations have resulted in at least six arrests and a slew of felony charges against lawyers in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties.
A line in Dopazo's court file suggests his case is the latest confirmation of law enforcement's scrutiny of medical and automobile insurance claims involving clinicians and legal professionals. It notes that in December 2011, “the Federal Bureau of Investigation sent the bar materials concerning the investigation and subsequent indictment of two nonlawyers for their involvement in an illegal patient-client recruiting scheme with medical clinics involving local lawyers.”
The tip led the bar to suspect Dopazo of paying for client referrals. In the final hearing of the disciplinary proceeding, it presented evidence of 31 payments to a clinic, Miami-Dade Services Inc., as proof of the attorney's complicity. But Dopazo explained the payments as legitimate reimbursement for medical services to his clients, leading the bar to admit it had no “smoking gun” linking him to a fraud.
The bar's 2015 complaint alleged misconduct and violation of Rule 4-7.18, which governs direct contact with prospective clients. It stemmed in part from Dopazo's interaction with Penny Jones, a woman whose son suffered traumatic brain injury in a car crash. It alleged Dopazo approached Jones while she was vulnerable and at her son's bedside at Jackson Memorial Hospital Ryder Trauma Center.
“There was no prior relationship between Jones and Dopazo, nor were his legal services sought by her or anyone acting on her behalf,” according to the unsigned Florida Supreme Court opinion issued Oct. 5. “The referee found that Dopazo's appearance at the hospital was completely unexpected, and while she did apparently retain his services at that time, Jones' limited education and fragile emotional condition … likely rendered her unable to make a rational decision whether to retain counsel or reject Dopazo's efforts to sign her up as a client.”
Dopazo claimed his office had called him and told him to go see Jones in the hospital intensive care unit. The referee rejected his explanation but found the bar failed to present “clear and convincing evidence that Dopazo was involved in the patient-client recruiting scheme.
The referee found the attorney guilty, and recommended the Supreme Court suspend his law license for six months.
Dopazo was admitted to the bar in November 1996. His bar file shows no disciplinary action in the last 10 years, but the new Supreme Court ruling points to a prior ethics case outside that window.
“Dopazo entered a consent judgment to a public reprimand for solicitation on August 24, 2004, for conduct that occurred in 2002,” the justices wrote in accepting the referee's findings, but opting instead to double the recommended sentence. “The solicitation of Jones occurred in March or April 2007, which was not even three years after the consent judgment for solicitation. At the time Dopazo solicited Jones, his public reprimand should have been fresh in his mind, especially because he committed the same rule violation of solicitation a second time.”
Neither Dopazo nor his attorney, Young Berman Karpf & Gonzalez partner Andrew Berman, responded to requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 2A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 3Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 4State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 5Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250