'How Could He Take $1 Million?' Justices Consider Disbarment for Former Rainmaker Jeremy Alters
Justice C. Alan Lawson asked in what "conceivable universe" would trust account violations go unpunished.
May 10, 2018 at 04:18 PM
4 minute read
Florida Supreme Court Justices appear to be weighing disbarment or a “substantial suspension” for former complex litigation rainmaker Jeremy Alters in disciplinary proceedings.
A court-appointed referee concluded the Florida Bar ”stridently pursued the wrong lawyer” for five years over $1 million misappropriated from his law firm's trust account and recommended no sanctions for Alters.
But the high court seems to be leaning in the opposite direction.
More than once during oral arguments Tuesday, Justice Barbara J. Pariente made it clear the Supreme Court was considering only the degree of Alters' punishment — not whether to discipline him. She asked why Alters should not “at the very least be required to serve a substantial suspension, if not disbarment.”
Alters is a Dania Beach lawyer who provided $2.5 million to launch Alters Boldt Brown Rash & Culmo in 2007, according to information presented in court. Once a prolific Democratic fundraiser and high-stakes class action litigator, he is now a personal injury attorney with Morelli Alters.
The Florida Bar claimed he directed 49 improper transactions from 2009 to 2010 that funneled $1 million from his firm's trust account to pay operating expenses and Alters' personal bills.
The bar appealed to the Supreme Court to review the referee's report that cleared Alters of four major charges but found him guilty of failing to prevent recurring problems created by others at his firm. It asked the court to disbar Alters.
“One thing is clear: Jeremy Alters violated three of the most fundamental and sacrosanct principles of the Florida Bar,” bar counsel William Mulligan told the high court. “This is a garden-variety misappropriation case.”
Several justices seemed to agree.
“There's no question there is a significant trust account violation,” Pariente said. “I find the referee's report somewhat baffling.”
Later, she questioned the defense's argument that Alters was more involved in litigation than in overseeing the firm's daily operations and was not responsible for trust account deficits.
“There was no way he could not have known that his firm, that he founded, was not making money,” Pariente said. “And therefore, how could he have taken $1 million to pay himself?”
The high court has the final word on attorney discipline and can accept or reject a referee's recommendation.
In this case, the referee, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Marcia Caballero, issued a scathing report that concluded the bar ignored evidence, disregarded credible witnesses and seemed intent on prosecuting Alters. She recommended the bar pay the attorney $143,000 for years of litigation.
But the justices' questions and animated comments were critical of Alters' law firm operations.
“Is there a conceivable universe in which you could imagine this court writing an opinion saying that it's OK to use your trust account as a line of credit to keep your firm afloat as long as you successfully restore everything by hiding the problem?” Justice C. Alan Lawson asked Alters' attorney Andrew S. Berman, who was clearly under fire during the oral arguments.
The justices also noted Alters' annual membership statement claimed he was in compliance with bar rules when the firm knew about and failed to disclose the seven-figure deficit.
Mulligan said a disclosure would have triggered a bar investigation and perhaps “serious repercussions” for the firm.
“The only reason he was able to keep things afloat and continue to borrow money from his trust account to operate his firm, and ultimately pay this money back — which was a good thing — was because he misrepresented on his form that he was in compliance with the trust rules when he was in violation,” Lawson said.
Mulligan did not respond to a request for comment following the hearing.
Berman noted the firm replenished the trust account.
“We have faith that the court will give due deference to the referee's factual findings in Mr. Alters' favor and also recognize that he took responsibility for ensuring that the trust account became properly reconciled so that neither clients nor the bar's client security fund suffered any loss,” said Berman, a senior partner at Young Berman Karpf & Gonzalez in Miami.
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 AllElite Boutiques Competing More With Big Law Bonuses, With Several Going Above Market
9 minute readIt's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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