IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case No. SC13-2136

Complainant,

JEFFREY S KAUFMAN JR,

v.

Respondent.

The Florida Bar File Nos. 2011 -31,306 (18A); 2011 -31,492 (18A) 2012-30,257 (18A); 2012-30,344 (18A) 2012-31,004 (18A); 2012-31,153 (18A) 2012- 90,062 (18A) And 2013- 30,890 (18A) (CMO)

/

CONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA FOR CONSENT JUDGMENT

COMES NOW, the undersigned respondent, Matthew Shane Englett, and

files this Conditional Guilty Plea pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.9.

Respondent is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a member of The

Florida Bar, subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.

1. The respondent is acting freely and voluntarily in this matter, and

tenders this Plea without fear or threat of coercion. Respondent is represented in

this matter.

2. As to The Florida Bar Case Nos. 2011-31,306 (18A); 2011-31,492

(18A), 2012-30,257 (18A), 302012-30,344 (18A); 2012-31,004 (18A); 2012-

31,153 (18A); and 2012-90,062 (18A) there has been a finding of probable cause

by the grievance committee.

3. As to The Florida Bar Case Nos. 2013-30,890 (18A) (CMO)

respondent waives a finding of probable cause.

4. The disciplinary measures to be imposed upon the respondent are as

follows:

A. A public reprimand administered by the Board of

Governors;

B. Attendance at Ethics School within six months of the

issuance of the Court's order;

C. Respondent shall be responsible for payment of the

$750.00 fee associated with Ethics School and failure to pay such fees

and/or attend Ethics School may be cause for further proceedings;

D. Respondent shall also complete 5 additional hours of

Continuing Legal Education in ethics, in addition to the 5 hours of credit

received by attending Ethics School and in addition to the 5 hours required

to comply with R. Regulating Fla. Bar 6-10.3(b);

E. Respondent shall be responsible for the costs of the

Continuing Legal Education courses;

F. Failure to complete the 5 additional hours within six

months of the Court's order may be cause for further proceedings; and

G. Payment of the bar's costs.

2

5. The following allegations provide the basis for respondent's guilty

plea and for the discipline to be imposed in this matter:

A. Respondent is a partner in a law firm that provides a variety of

services including, but not limited to foreclosure defense, loan modifications, and

bankruptcy. Due to the growth of the law firm during the home mortgage crisis

much of the communication between clients of the firm and the firm was handled

by nonattorney staff. At times, clients had a difficult time speaking directly with

an attorney about their matters and/or found it difficult to get timely accurate

information about the status of their matters.

B. In order to handle the potential clients that called or walked-in,

respondent and his partners set up an in-take department. The nonlawyer intake

personnel gathered information from the prospective clients and assisted them with

signing representation contracts for the firm. Respondent and his partners paid

these intake personnel bonuses.

6. Pursuant to the foregoing, respondent is guilty of violating the

following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: 4-1.4(b) A lawyer shall explain a

matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed

decisions regarding the representation; and 4-5.4(a)(4) A lawyer or law firm shall

not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: bonuses may be paid to

nonlawyer employees for work performed, and may be based on their

3

extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specified time period. Bonus

payments shall not be based on cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm

by the actions of the nonlawyer. A lawyer shall not provide a bonus payment that

is calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer or law firm.

7. Further, in aggravation, respondent was previously admonished for

advertising violations, multiple offenses occurred, and respondent has substantial

experience in the practice of law.

8. In mitigation, respondent had no selfish or dishonest motive and he

provided full and free disclosure to the bar and was cooperative throughout the

several years the matter has pended. Respondent has also engaged in interim

rehabilitation by addressing issues that have been raised by the bar throughout the

pendency of the matter to ensure better compliance with the rules, and has shown

remorse over the situation.

Due to the large number of clients seeking assistance, respondent and his

partners devised a non-traditional business model that they believed would be

highly efficient, would represent clients competently, and would reduce the

amount of attorneys' fees but also be one that would provide a reasonable profit in

order for respondents to have a successful law firm. In essence, what their model

called for was the segmentation of a client's matter with each segment being

handled by a different department in order to promote efficiency and better

4

movement on the client's file. Respondent and his partners believed this method

of working files, especially in the area of loan modifications, was better than the

traditional model implemented by most firms.

While respondent's law firm was involved in assisting the public in matters

that resulted from the home mortgage crisis, the conduct engaged in by respondent,

his partners and other members of his firm is dissimilar to that engaged in by

Marshall Craig Watson [The Florida Bar v. Watson, 117 So.3d 413 (Fla. 2012)

(Table Citation)]. At all times, respondent and his partners had in place policies

and procedures whereby employees were supervised and trained. The employees

were also provided information regarding conduct that was appropriate under the

bar's rules. When it was discovered employees failed to follow the guidelines

required, the employees were either admonished and retrained or were terminated.

Unlike Watson neither respondent nor his law firm received any complaints from

the judiciary regarding their conduct in the referenced matters. Moreover, neither

respondent, nor his partners, nor the attorney staff, nor any other staff engaged in

conduct whereby affidavits were signed outside the presence of a notary.

In the instant matter, respondent and his partners provided information to the

clients describing the manner in which the firm would handle their cases. The

outline explained that a "team" approach would be used and that numerous

individuals would work on the file. The firm also provided a secure portal by

5

which clients could submit documentation and review their particular matter at any

time. In addition, the respondent and his partners developed a customer service

department that would field calls regarding status updates and the like.

Respondent and his partners believed handling communications in this manner

would enable clients to obtain information efficiently and would reduce the costs

of representation because the attorneys would not have to field those types of calls.

However, respondent admits that because there was a reasonably high

turnover in employees and because multiple departments within the firm were

handling different aspects of a client's matter, at times the ease by which a client

could obtain quick, accurate information was compromised. Further, respondent

acknowledges that due to the manner in which communication was being handled,

it was difficult at times for a client to speak with an attorney and/or obtain timely

accurate information regarding their matters.

Respondent and his partners have worked to address areas of concern in

their practice. Respondent and his partners have invested in hiring qualified

individuals to respond to the needs of the clients, have continued to invest in

training their employees, and have changed the manner and method in which

clients' matters are handled in order to ensure timely, accurate information gets to

the client and to provide clients with confidence that attorneys are available to

speak with them knowledgably about their matters.

6

Respondent and his partners have also changed the manner in which

nonattorney intake personnel are paid. However, respondent and his partners at all

times believed, in good faith, that the manner in which nonattorney intake

employees were being paid was not in violation of the rules. The reason for this

belief was respondent's and his partners' interpretation of the verbiage of the R.

Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5.4(a)(4) that " . . . [b]onus payments shall not be based on

cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm by the actions of the nonlawyer..

. . ." Respondent and his partners did not believe that the actions of the intake

personnel constituted "bringing" clients to the lawyer or law firm as contemplated

by the rule. Rather, respondent and his partners believed that the bar approved

advertising and word-of-mouth referrals from friends, and former or current clients

"brought" the clients to the firm.

However, respondent acknowledges the bar's position that the payment of a

bonus to the intake personnel constituted fee sharing. In recognition of the fact

their conduct, no matter how well intentioned, may be a violation of the rules,

respondent and his partners terminated the bonus payments and now pay their

intake personnel hourly wages.

Respondent and his partners do not deny that, like any law firm, they wish

for their firm to be profitable and successful. However, there has been no showing

that the conduct engaged in by respondent or his partners was based upon

7

dishonesty or selfish motive. Rather, while admitting the firm was not always

successful and that changes were appropriate in order to provide better

representation to the firm's clients, the firm also assisted thousands of people

during the time period involved in the instant proceedings and did so for a

reasonable cost to the clients. Even though respondent and his partners stand

behind their position that a vast majority of their clients were satisfied with the

firm's representation, respondent and his partners fully admit that there were

numerous clients that were not satisfied. In light of that dissatisfaction and

respondent's and his partners' desire to fully address the issues that have arisen,

additional and/or new policies and procedures have been implemented over time.

Respondent, his partners, and their staff, both attorney and nonattorney, have

worked and are continuing to work to ensure adequate representation to the firm's

clients and to address the specific areas that have been raised by dissatisfied

clients.

Additionally, respondent and his partners have been cooperative with the bar

throughout the pendency of the bar's disciplinary proceeding. Respondent and his

partners have provided all documentation requested and have attempted to address

concerns raised by the bar in a timely manner. Further, respondent and his partners

requested that the bar tour their office in order to show the bar how their office

functioned and to further explain why they believed the manner in which they were

8

having their staff and attorneys handle client matters was efficient, responsive, and

competent. Respondent and his partners have consistently shown they are willing

to address matters of concern brought to their attention. Likewise, respondent and

his partners have shown they are willing to address the manner in which they

conduct not only the business side of their law practice but also the legal side of

their practice to comply not only with the letter of the rules but also with the spirit

of the rules governing attorney conduct.

9. The Florida Bar has approved this proposed plea in the manner

required by Rule 3-7.9.

10. I f this plea is not finally approved by the referee and the Supreme

Court of Florida, then it shall be of no effect and may not be used by the parties in

any way.

11. I f this plea is approved, then the respondent agrees to pay all

reasonable costs associated with this case pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-

7.6(q) in the amount of $3,759.66. These costs are due within 30 days of the court

order. Respondent agrees that i f the costs are not paid within 30 days of this

court's order becoming final, the respondent shall pay interest on any unpaid costs

at the statutory rate. Respondent further agrees not to attempt to discharge the

obligation for payment of the Bar's costs in any future proceedings, including but

not limited to, a petition for bankruptcy. Respondent shall be deemed delinquent

9

and ineligible to practice law pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-3.6 i f the cost

judgment is not satisfied within 30 days of the final court order, unless deferred by

the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar.

12. The respondent acknowledges the obligation to pay the costs of this

proceeding and that payment is evidence of strict compliance with the conditions

of any disciplinary order or agreement, and is also evidence of good faith and fiscal

responsibility. Respondent understands that failure to pay the costs of this

proceeding or restitution may reflect adversely on any reinstatement proceedings

or any other bar disciplinary matter in which the respondent is involved.

13. I f this plea is approved, and restitution is owed, i f the person to whom

restitution is owed cannot be located after a diligent search, respondent shall

execute an affidavit of diligent search and provide same to The Florida Bar and

shall pay the full amount of the restitution to the Clients' Security Fund of The

Florida Bar within 30 days of the date of the affidavit of diligent search.

This Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgment fully complies with all

requirements of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

Dated this _21st_ day of August 2014.

Is/ Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Jr. Jeffrey S Kaufman Jr. Respondent Kaufman, Englett & Lynd PLLC 111 N Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, Florida 32801-1524

10

(407)513-1900: Florida Bar No.: 99538 jk21aw@,aol.com

Dated this 21st day of August 2014.

/s/D. Culver Smith III D Culver Smith I I I Counsel for Respondent Culver Smith I I I , P.A. 500 S Australian Avenue, Suite 600 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6237 (561) 598-6800 Florida Bar ID No.: 105933 csmith@culversmithlaw.com

Dated this 21st day of August 2014.

JoAnn Marie Stalcup BarCounsel The Florida Bar Orlando Branch Office The Gateway Center 1000 Legion Place, Suite 1625 Orlando, Florida 32801-1050 (407) 425-5424 Florida Bar No. 972932 j stalcup@flabar.org orlandooffice@flabar.org

11