|
JACKSONVILLE, FLA---A former associate of the Florida law firm Farah, Farah, & Abbott who says that law firm was regularly overcharging its personal injury clients, has finally received a copy of an audit completed in April, 2005 by The Florida Bar which shows that the firm admits to having overbilled clients and has issued approximately $130,000 in refunds. http://home.comcast.net/~email4hill/fla_bar_audit_041305.pdf
However, the Bar has inexplicably refused to initiate any disciplinary action against Farah.
The report was prepared by certified public accountant and certified fraud examiner James F. Wells following his audit on Farah's trust account records and procedures for the period 2002 through 2004 to determine whether they complied with the requirements of the Florida Bar rules governing trust accounts.
Attorney Jeffrey R. Hill says he was employed by the law firm, aka Law Firm of Eddie Farah, in 2004 when he discovered it was regularly overcharging its personal injury clients.
The Bar audit substantiates Hill's claim, saying that "administrative costs that were not substantiated by documentary evidence were charged on some settlement statements in personal injury cases. These administrative costs were in excess of the documented costs such as copies, faxes and postage. Rule 5-1.2(b)(4) requires documentary support for all disbursements from the trust account. These costs were not authorized by the clients".
Additionally, in a letter to the Bar in September, Farah admitted that clients of his firm had been overcharged.
In discussing corrective action taken, Wells stated, "The firm reviewed client files and settlement statements to determine the specific clients that had been charged unsubstantiated administrative costs. Refunds totaling approximately $130,000, including interest, were issued to those clients."
"In my opinion, Mr. Farah's trust accounting records and procedures in connection with the documentation of costs paid from trust funds during the period from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004 were not in substantial compliance with The Florida Bar's rules governing trust accounts", Wells said in the audit.
Hill said that unfortunately, the records produced by The Florida Bar offer no clues as to the basis for its grievance committee's determination of no probable cause for disciplinary proceedings. Even the grievance committee's Nov. 8, 2005 Notice of No Probable Cause and Letter of Advice fails to explain its reasoning. Cronyism seems the most obvious and logical explanation, Hill said. http://home.comcast.net/~email4hill/notice_of_npc_and_loa_110805.pdf
"The firm was frequently 'padding' costs charged to clients by $300 or more per case and had been doing so for several years", Hill says. Hill reported his concerns over the firm's illicit overcharging practices in September 2004 by letter to Donald M. Spangler, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel for the Florida Bar. To Hill's surprise, a full year went by with no contact from any representatives of the Bar to investigate his allegations of wide scale fraud and misappropriation of clients' funds.
Hill followed up with the Bar in September and October 2005. By email dated Oct. 27, Spangler succinctly responded, "The file to which you refer was closed. The grievance committee considered the matter after investigation and an audit by the bar staff auditor, and found there was no probable cause to pursue disciplinary proceedings. They did elect to send a letter of advice to the firm."
Questioning the thoroughness the grievance committee's investigation as well as the audit by the Bar Staff Auditor. Hill followed up with Spangler requesting a copy of Bar's complete file. By email dated Oct. 28, Spangler responded, "Your request will be treated as a public records request and you will be informed by the appropriate individual regarding the cost of the documents you are requesting."
On Dec. 7,,Hill finally received a response from the Bar to his public records request but says the records produced were obviously incomplete. With the exception of nine pages, the records produced were limited to documents Hill says he personally sent to Bar. Most noticeably absent from the records were the grievance committee's file and the results from the audit of Farah, Farah & Abbott's trust account that Hill says the records show was scheduled for March 2, 2005.
The audit report was issued April 13, 1005.
Attorney John A. Weiss of Tallahassee represented the firm's principals, attorneys and brothers Eddie and Chuck Farah, before the Bar. Hill said he learned a a Bar audit took place since Weiss stated in a Sept. 22 letter to the Bar, "As an aside, I would advise you that the firm has refunded in excess of $120,000.00 ..., including both principal and interest, to those clients who were inadvertently overcharged for costs. Approximately $10,000.00 remains undisbursed because the firm, and the private investigator it subsequently hired, could not find the individuals." Weiss' letter and examples of the firm's overcharging practices are available on Hill's personal web page called Hill's Peek at http://home.comcast.net/~email4hill/wsb/index.html.
Hill observes, "That certainly sounds like quite a bit of money to be 'inadvertently overcharged'. It would take overcharging 400 clients by $300 each to reach $120,000."
For previous North Country Gazette articles on this topic, see:
Lawyer Says Crist, Bar Refusing To Investigate Overcharging, Florida Bar Board To Review Disciplinary Process and
Florida Attorneys Admit Overcharging of Clients
1-17-06
© 2005 North
Country Gazette
|
