Stealing $550,000 and other behaviors got these Fort Lauderdale attorneys disciplined
Three Fort Lauderdale attorneys comprise South Florida’s representation on the most recent Florida Bar report of attorneys disciplined by the state Supreme Court.
In alphabetical order:
▪ James Potts was in the middle of a 60-day suspension (to be followed by a two-year probation) for unprofessional communication detailed in a July 21 Miami Herald story, communication such as “You will never see me coming and won’t know what hit you when you realize what you’ve brought upon yourself ... Take some time this weekend to commune with the Lord, because you will need all the help you can get.”
While Potts served his time in the legal penalty box, the Bar had two other inquiries for Potts. The state Supreme Court issued an order for him to show cause. Potts gave no answers. That’s contempt of court. Potts’ suspension now runs until he answers the Bar’s inquiries.
▪ Sean Sheppard (admitted to the Bar in 1995) opened the disciplinary revocation trap door.
Disciplinary revocation makes the pending Bar discipline matters against an attorney disappear but also means the attorney must professionally disappear for at least five years. As the official state Supreme Court orders say, it’s “tantamount to disbarment.” This does nothing to any criminal charges arising from the discipline case.
The Bar says Sheppard “misappropriated client funds,” a polite, legal way of saying he stole client cash. A couple gave him $550,000 to put in his business trust fund and he spent it on himself. In his petition for disciplinary revocation, Sheppard agreed to reimburse the clients $550,000 plus interest calculated from May 17, 2019.
Sheppard can apply for readmission to the Bar on Sept. 3, 2025.
▪ Kenneth Trent (admitted to the Bar in 2003) started his two-year suspension Friday.
A client went to Trent when she wanted to sue her former attorney. Trent took the case, took the money, but didn’t get the former attorney served. Eventually, that got the case dismissed.
The referee wasn’t sure Trent failed to communicate with his client or that he failed to work hard enough or smart enough. And he agreed to charge the client nothing for representing her in a foreclosure.
But the referee had a problem with Trent responding to her Bar complaint by offering $7,500 as payment (in 24 installments of $300) to her in exchange for permanently dropping the complaint.
Trent took up the case of a woman who had signed to surrender her home in a bankruptcy in December 2016, then denied she agreed to any surrender. She refused to physically give up the real estate. Crossfire Financial Network filed an emergency motion to enforce the surrender.
The woman hired Trent, who entered the legal fray by countering with a motion to vacate the order concerning the property. On April 25, 2017, a judge gave Crossfire’s motion the thumbs up and Trent’s motion thumbs down. Hand over the dirt, the court ordered.
Trent responded by filing notice of a voluntary dismissal of the bankruptcy, which in and of itself did not invalidate the April 25, 2017, order. In a subsequent hearing, Trent “plays word games and contends that not consenting is not opposing. In truth and in fact, (Trent) and his client did not surrender the property as ordered and continued to oppose the state court foreclosure action.”
Both the referee and the bankruptcy court thought Trent “acted in bad faith and didn’t comply with the bankruptcy court orders.”
The referee recommended a six-month suspension. The state Supreme Court decided Trent’s disrespect called for a two-year comeuppance.
