THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
JOMAR A. VALDES, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court approved a joint stipulation in which Jomar Valdes admitted to unauthorized practice of law and was permanently enjoined from engaging in specified legal activities including preparing deeds, assisting with incorporation documents, drawing contracts, representing clients in real property transactions, and representing himself as an attorney. Valdes may continue working as non-lawyer personnel with an attorney if he does not engage in the enjoined conduct.
The court approved the joint stipulation and held that Valdes's conduct constitutes unauthorized practice of law. Valdes is permanently enjoined from: preparing warranty deeds for others; assisting with incorporation and divorce documents; drawing leases and contracts; representing individuals in real property transactions; giving legal advice on evictions; and representing himself as a Florida attorney. Violation of the injunction will result in criminal contempt charges.
[1] Preparing warranty deeds for individuals other than oneself constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
[2] Assisting others in the preparation of articles of incorporation and dissolution of marriage documents constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The following activities constitute the unauthorized practice of law and may not be carried out or conducted in Florida by Respondent, who is permanently restrained and enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law in Florida”
Establishes the court's authority to enjoin Valdes from the specified conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValdes engaged in activities constituting the unauthorized practice of law, including preparing warranty deeds for individuals, assisting in preparati…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unauthorized Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this unauthorized practice of law proceeding, we have for consideration a joint stipulation of the parties and an order approving the stipulation entered by the Honorable Mario P. Goderich, circuit court judge, as referee. The provisions of the Joint Stipulation are hereby approved and confirmed. Respondent has admitted the allegations of the Petition Against Unauthorized Practice of Law filed herein. The following activities constitute the unauthorized practice of law and may not be carried out or conducted in Florida by Respondent, who is permanently restrained and enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law in Florida, including, but not limited to the following:
(a) preparing warranty deeds for individuals other than himself;
(b) assisting others in the preparation of articles of incorporation and dissolution of marriage documents;
(c) drawing lease agreements for individuals other than himself;
(d) drawing contracts for corporations of which he was an officer or director; and (e) representing individuals in the purchase of real property;
(f) giving legal advice regarding eviction proceedings; and (g) representing himself as an attorney authorized to practice law in the State of Florida.
Respondent is enjoined permanently from engaging in the above acts and from otherwise engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Florida, unless and until Respondent becomes a member of The Florida Bar. In the event Respondent engages in any of the conduct enjoined herein, he will be found in indirect criminal contempt of the Supreme Court of Florida for the unauthorized practice of law in this state.
The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs, if any, of this proceeding to Petitioner. The amount of such costs shall be determined by this Court upon a motion to fix costs submitted by Petitioner subsequent to entry of the Order by this Court.
Respondent may continue his present employment as non-lawyer personnel with an attorney, or obtain future employment with an attorney as non-lawyer personnel, provided he does not engage in the activities enjoined herein or otherwise engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Schramek, 616 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1993)…982 (Fla.1985) (having direct contact with clients in the nature of consultation, explanation, recommendations, advice, and assistance in the provision, selection, and completion of forms is the unauthorized practice of law); The Fla. Bar v. Valdes, 464 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1985) (preparation of deeds for individuals other than one’s self constitutes the unauthorized practice of law); The Fla. Bar v. Mills, 410 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1982) (giving advice regarding procedures to follow for an appeal constitutes the unauth…
-
The Fla. Bar re Advisory Opinion-Nonlawyer Preparation of & Representation of Landlord in Uncontested Residential Evictions, 605 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1992)…e proposed opinion. Citing to The Florida Bar v. Mickens, 505 So. 2d 1319 (Fla.1987) (Mickens II); The Florida Bar v. Rich, 481 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.1986); The Florida Bar v. Mickens, 465 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1985) (Mickens I); and The Florida Bar v. Valdes, 464 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1985), the Standing Committee takes the position that the proposed advisory opinion merely reaffirms the case law in this area. Our decisions Mickens I and Mickens II involved an injunction against a “nonlaw-yer tenant eviction service.” 505 S…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Jomar Aurelio Valdes, 507 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1987)…e law in Florida; that on numerous occasions respondent represented himself as an attorney authorized to practice law in Florida, and in fact engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in contempt of this Court’s order in The Florida Bar v. Valdes, 464 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1985); and that in January 1986, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida found respondent guilty of violating Title 18, United States Code, section 1001, for willfully and knowingly making a false and fraudulent st…