Condo money, ex-wives, fees: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Coral Gables lawyers disciplined
The most recent monthly Florida Bar report of attorneys disciplined by the state Supreme Court included four attorneys from Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Monroe counties, and punitive action that included three suspensions, a public reprimand and no disbarments.
In alphabetical order...
John Faro, Miami
The referee in this case noted that Faro (admitted to the Bar in 1986) “has shown no remorse” and “affixes blame on a myriad of persons for his own misconduct, including his ex-wife for not providing him with the client’s file, the receptionist at his virtual office for not ferreting his mail, the client for not asking the right questions.
“In a Motion for Rehearing to the USPTO, he even accuses the Office of the Executive Director of the USPTO of “palpable misconduct and fraud.””
The USPTO is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. According to the referee’s report, in November 2002, Faro took up an EPRT Technologies patent case that was first filed in September 2000 and receiving a First Final Rejection from the USPTO in September 2002. The USPTO rejected 21 claims in the application.
After more filings and amendments, the USPTO issued a Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment in January 2004. Faro’s next filing, in February 2004, was ruled non-compliant, the USPTO issued a Notice of First Abandonment in August 2004.
“The First Abandonment stated that the patent examiner had left voice messages for [Faro] on July 9, July 19, and July 20, 2004, the last call informing [Faro] that the application would be deemed abandoned if he did not contact the examiner by July 23, 2004,” the referee’s report said. Faro “did not return any messages, and the application was deemed abandoned.”
Faro claimed he never got the January 2004 notice in his Petition to Revive, granted Jan. 18, 2005. But three months and a day after the revival, April 19, 2005, the USPTO issued a Second Final Rejection, rejecting five claims in the application.
But Faro told EPRT President Katherine Blake and EPRT co-inventor Dave Estes, “the US examiner has issued an office action (non-final rejection) and I shall set up an interview with her shortly.”
A Third Final Rejection, in November, rejected three claims and objected to two. In that rejection, the USPTO “informed [Faro] that, in all capital letters, “a shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire 3 month(s) or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer, from the mailing date of this communication.” The same section also stated that the application would become abandoned if a reply was not received within the reply period.”
Faro didn’t relay the Third Rejection accurately to Blake and Estes, the referee’s report said, and “there’s no indication anybody at EPRT received a copy of the Third Final Review.”
Faro filed an appeal in 2006 to the Board of Patent Appeal. On June 1, 2009, the Board affirmed the Third Final Rejection’s conclusions, an affirmation that, the referee’s report said, “included a footnote announcing the two-month period to file an appeal or initiate a civil case; the final page stated, “no period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.”
The decision was sent to Faro’s bar address, as was, after no appeal was filed in the two-month period, an Aug. 14, 2009 USPTO Notice of Abandonment. Though the notice said a message also had been left on Faro’s answering machine on Aug. 6, 2009, Faro claimed he never got the notice.
Blake began asking about the status of the application. Faro said in 2010 that he’d made inquiries but hadn’t heard back from anyone. In 2011, after “abruptly ending a call” with Blake, the referee’s report said Faro didn’t answer when she immediately called back and didn’t answer seven emails or accompanying phone calls.
EPRT wasn’t aware of the Notice of Abandonment until Oct. 28, 2011, two years and almost five months after it happened, the referee’s report said. By that time, EPRT had hired attorney Roger Farahmad. When Farahmad asked Faro for EPRT’s file, the referee’s report said Faro didn’t provide it.
Farahmad got it by subpoenaing Faro’s ex-wife.
The USPTO suspended Faro for eight months. The state Supreme Court suspended Faro for three years, a suspension that began April 27.
Gian Ratnapala, Fort Lauderdale
While representing the Sabal Palm Condominium Association in 2019, Ratnapala’s guilty plea says, he made two deposits totaling $3,653.35 in his trust account. The money was from a unit owner behind on the maintenance fees. Ratnapala (admitted to the Bar in 2012) didn’t tell the association he had the money.
“In response to the bar complaint, [Ratnapala] advised that Sabal Palm owed him unpaid legal fees and he offset those fees against the funds,” his guilty plea says. “By his accounting, [Ratnapala] explained that he owes $810.15 to Sabal Palm.”
But Ratnapala’s record-keeping meant Bar auditors had to get deposit tickets and canceled checks from his bank. Neither the deposit tickets nor the canceled checks consistently identified the client involved or, on the deposit tickets, who gave Ratnapala the money. His ledgers didn’t include check numbers or transaction descriptions.
That’s fine for personal finance, but not in a lawyer’s trust account.
“There was no evidence of intentional misappropriation, and [Ratnapala] has taken steps to update his record keeping procedures,” his guilty plea says.
Still, Ratnapala got a 45-day suspension, after which he’ll be on a two-year probation. During that probation, a CPA will provide the Bar with quarterly statements. He also has to attend a trust accounting workshop.
Michael Rose, Miami
Rose (admitted to the Bar in 1971) got divorced in 2003, according to his guilty plea. He created a trust for the child he shared with his ex-wife and gave her the title to their condominium, to be used as a residence for her and the child.
When Rose’s ex-wife remarried, she sold the condo and used the money to buy a new place in the names of her and her new husband. The new home wasn’t put in the trust, which Rose saw as “an invasion of the trust corpus.”
But, when the new home went into foreclosure in 2009, Rose represented his ex-wife in the foreclosure proceedings. The foreclosure judgment was entered for $1.5 million. Rose’s ex-wife asked him to help find a “friendly buyer” for the judgment, which would give her time to find a buyer for the home. Rose found an individual identified in his guilty plea as “Mr. Torres,” godfather to the child Rose shared with his ex.
Torres bought the judgment at a discounted amount that Rose negotiated and financed the deal with money from Rose.
Rose’s ex-wife found a buyer. When asked by her attorney about the payoff on the foreclosure judgment, Rose said $1.5 million. Rose’s guilty plea says his ex-wife’s deposition testimony shows she knew for a month before the closing that the judgment had been bought for a discounted rate and emails between her and Torres showed she knew “the payoff figure was off by $88,145.42.”
She sued Torres for the overpayment. Rose represented Torres until he was disqualified.
Rose got a public reprimand for violating conflict of interest guidelines.
Gregory Saldamando, Coral Gables
Saldamando (admitted to the Bar in 2007) was an associate with Strems Law Firm when he got the case of Eduardo Alvarez and Doris Herrera, who claimed water damage and sinkhole damage in their Southwest Ranches home in 2013. Strems handled the sinkhole damage part in a claim against American Integrity Insurance Company.
The couple agreed to accept a settlement of $100,000, believing they would get $65,000 out of that and Strems would get $35,000.
“Without the clients’ knowledge or approval, [Saldamando] secured and finalized a second global settlement of $157,500,” the bar complaint said. “Without the clients’ knowledge or approval, [Saldamando] did not allocate any of the increased settlement amount to the clients.”
So, Alvarez and Herrera still got $65,000, but Strems would get $92,000. The couple found out their case had been settled when they got a notice of settlement on May 14 or 15, 2019.
Herrera told the referee that Saldamando told her and her husband that the retainer agreement gave him total authority, that he didn’t have to tell them anything before accepting the settlement offer. They never saw an invoice or a breakdown of Saldamando’s fees.
Also, they told the referee, when they met with Saldamando and Herrera tried to impress upon him the conditions they’d been living in with their kids because of the damage, he was not impressed.
Herrera said, “He said, ‘Tell your wife to keep her heartstring stories. We don’t need to hear that.’”
The referee’s report includes 23 character reference letters from former clients, judges and fellow attorneys, including one from attorney Luz Borges that says, “If I had to describe Greg in three words, it would be “Christian, Family, and Attorney.” “Christlike attorney” is a term that Greg created due to the challenges we face in the field.”
The referee recommended public reprimand because Saldamando violated rules of proper client communication.
The state Supreme Court opined that Saldamando violated the rules of proper client communication, conflict of interest with current clients and objectives and scope of presentation. The court suspended Saldamando for 91 days.
