Strems cited for contempt
The Florida Bar this past Friday filed a third case against Scot Strems in the Florida Supreme Court, accusing the suspended plaintiff insurance attorney of contempt by continuing to practice law after his Supreme Court suspension on June 9. Also last week, the Court approved the referee report and denied Strems’ motion to dissolve his suspension; it also received an answer from his former colleague Gregory Saldamando to his own Bar complaint.
In the Bar’s Petition for Contempt, it states that following the Suspension Order, the Strems Law Firm (SLF) “continued to send letters of representation to insurance companies. These letters notified insurance carriers of SLF’s involvement in newly-brought claims, and they further directed the insurers to communicate with the firm directly. The letters also direct the insurers to pay ‘any and all payments and/or drafts of insurance proceeds’ to SLF.” The Bar also alleges Strems failed to notify clients of his suspension “immediately” as mandated by the Suspension Order, instead waiting “until SLF had renamed itself The Property Advocates, P.A.” on July 1 and “until he had devised a means for transferring those clients to his former associates.”
The Bar’s petition also alleges SLF did not follow proper judicial rules on termination of attorney appearance, made filings after the 30-day wind-down period, and in two cited cases, failed to notify the court or parties of SLF’s reorganization or make any filings since the Suspension Order. “The Florida Bar cannot presently ascertain the number of cases in which there has been no filing to advise the court or the parties regarding respondent’s suspension or his firm’s reorganization.”
The Bar’s petition also notes disagreement between Property Advocates and some local courts on the need to enter new appearances or provide proof of consent by plaintiffs on substitution of counsel. “Accordingly, the unusual fiction put forward by Property Advocates has created a pervasive uncertainty in courtrooms across the state regarding the simple, axiomatic issue of whether Property Advocates is in fact authorized to represent the parties it purports to represent,” according to the Bar, which also filed a 493-page appendix. Strems has been ordered to respond to the Bar’s petition by September 11. His trial is scheduled to begin September 8.
Also last week, Gregory Saldamando, another lawyer in the Strems Law Firm, filed an answer to the Bar’s complaint against him. The Bar stated Saldamando “betrayed his ethical obligations to his clients in order to enrich himself at the clients’ expense,” by pocketing the cash difference between final settlements and the initial settlements that clients were told about. It’s similar to a second Bar complaint against Scot Strems. In his answer, Saldamando denied the substantial accusations against him. He did admit that while the retainer agreement includes a 20% contingency fee for “prelitigation” settlements, it does not include any contingency fee percentage for matters resolved in litigation.
For further background, you can read our June 22, July 20, August 3, and August 17 newsletter stories. This case is being closely watched by many and we will keep you apprised.
LMA Newsletter of 8-31-20
