357 So.3d 77
Fla.2022Background
- Scot Strems was sole owner of Strems Law Firm (SLF); firm took on 20–50 new cases weekly while staffing remained inadequate, producing repeated Kozel dismissals and weekly court sanctions.
- SLF attorneys missed deadlines, failed discovery, and judges reported systemic obstruction and rule violations; Strems was aware but did not take effective remedial steps.
- Strems submitted false or misleading affidavits in two cases by omitting emails from an attached chain; trial courts noted doctored affidavits and referred matters to the Bar.
- In an 84-year-old client’s case (Nowak), Strems negotiated a $45,000 settlement without confirming client consent, allocated $22,500 to SLF (half) and $22,500 to client, and invoked a fee-shifting provision to justify fees exceeding the contingency arrangement.
- Referees recommended a two-year suspension (firm mismanagement case) and a public reprimand (Nowak communication case); the Florida Supreme Court found multiple rule violations across both matters, disapproved some referee conclusions, and ordered immediate disbarment with costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supervisory responsibility (R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5.1(c)) | Bar: as sole partner Strems knowingly ratified/failed to remediate systemic firm failures that produced Kozel dismissals and sanctions. | Strems: lacked specific knowledge of many associate acts and should not be vicariously liable for unproven violations. | Court: competent evidence supports supervisory liability; Strems guilty under 4-5.1(c). |
| Candor / false affidavits & fraudulent client claims (4-3.3(a),(b); 4-8.4(c)) | Bar: Strems submitted misleading affidavits and failed to remediate known client fraud (Mora, Mojica). | Strems: disputes involvement/knowledge and due‑process complaints about reliance on certain orders. | Court: relied on trial court findings and record; found Strems guilty of submitting false/misleading affidavits and failing to remediate fraud. |
| Fee agreement, excessive fees & conflict (4-1.5; 4-1.7; 4-1.2) | Bar: Strems negotiated a global settlement to maximize fees at client’s expense; fee split contradicted contingency agreement and created a conflict. | Strems/referee: fee agreement permitted recovery of statutory fees; expert opined fees not excessive; client signed agreement. | Court: disapproved referee on fees/conflict; found Strems guilty of violating 4-1.5, 4-1.7, and 4-1.2 (failed to follow client objectives). |
| Communication / client consent (4-1.4) | Bar: Strems failed to communicate or obtain client consent for settlement allocation. | Strems: contends prior attorney had settlement authority; claimed reliance on file and prior communications. | Court: affirmed guilt for failing to communicate in Nowak case in part, but reversed guilt as to one mediation counteroffer (McEkron) where no evidence of Strems’ knowledge; otherwise found violation of 4-1.4. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) (establishes factors supporting dismissal with prejudice for procedural default)
- Florida Bar v. Shoureas, 892 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2004) (suspension for inaction and failure to respond to clients)
- Florida Bar v. Kane, 202 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 2016) (disbarment where attorneys secretly negotiated settlements benefiting fees over clients)
- Florida Bar v. Kavanaugh, 915 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2005) (limitations on collecting fees beyond agreed contingency absent court award)
- Florida Bar v. Springer, 873 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2004) (disbarment for prolonged, gross misconduct including falsified documents and failure to comply with court orders)
- Florida Bar v. Adorno, 60 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 2011) (three‑year suspension for negotiating to clients’ detriment and excessive fees)
- Florida Bar v. Germain, 957 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2007) (standard of review for referee findings of fact, mitigation, and aggravation)
- Florida Bar v. Greenspahn, 396 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1981) (court may impose combined sanctions considering cumulative misconduct)
- Florida Bar v. Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2015) (purposes of attorney discipline: protect public, punish/reform, and deter)