Formal Complaint - The Florida Bar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Supreme Court Case
No.
Complainant,
vs.
The Florida Bar File
No. 2009-70,732(1 IF)
PEDRO PABLO SOTOLONGO,
Respondent.
COMPLAINT OF THE FLORIDA BAR
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, files this Complaint against
PEDRO PABLO SOTOLONGO, Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 3, Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar and alleges the following:
1.
Respondent is and was at all times material herein a member of
The Florida Bar subject to the jurisdiction and disciplinary rules of the
Supreme Court of Florida.
2.
Prior to the filing of this Complaint, there has been a finding of
probable cause by a grievance committee as required by Rule 3-7.4(1), Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar.
The presiding member of the grievance
committee has approved the instant Complaint.
3.
Respondent was previously employed with The Wingate Law
Firm ("Wingate Firm"). The Wingate Firm handled numerous lawsuits on
behalf of plaintiffs who were making claims against Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Ltd. ("RCL").
4.
In late 2007, RCL discovered that two paralegals employed by
the Wingate Firm had an arrangement whereby the paralegals would provide
cash payments to a claims supervisor in the RCL Risk Management
Department in exchange for confidential information regarding RCL's
case/claim strategy, including RCL's valuation of the same.
5.
Thereafter, many of the RCL cases were settled at mediation for
at, or very near to, the case values provided by the RCL claims supervisor to
the Wingate Firm.
6.
In January 2008, RCL filed identical Motions to Disqualify
Plaintiffs Counsel and for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions and for
Emergency Stay of Proceedings in seventy-seven (77) separate pending
cases being handled by the Wingate Firm.
7.
At a January 24, 2008 hearing concerning the Motions to
Disqualify, the Wingate Firm and its principal, Jerrold Wingate ("Wingate"),
voluntarily withdrew from all pending cases with RCL.1 Respondent was
present at the hearing.
8.
1
On January 25, 2008, Respondent formed Sotolongo, P.A.
Wingate subsequently moved to South Africa and entered into a Consent
Judgment for disbarment with The Florida Bar.
9.
On January 28, 2008, the Court entered an Order, of which
Respondent was aware, that stated in part:
The Wingate Firm shall be permitted to file a charging lien for
fees and costs incurred in representing the subject Plaintiffs in
accordance with the law in the subject seventy-seven (77) cases.
Permission to file a charging lien is not to be construed as
approval or disapproval of the lien.
The Omnibus order dated January 28, 2008 is attached as Exhibit "A".
10.
At the time of the Order, Respondent was not counsel of record
in any of the seventy-seven (77) RCL cases. Respondent had been a salaried
employee of the Wingate Firm. Respondent thus had no right to claim fees
from those cases.
11.
Despite the Court's Order, and without notice to or approval by
the Court, the Wingate Firm and Respondent entered into Agreements
whereby each would receive a portion of the fees recovered in the seventyseven (77) RCL cases.
12.
The February 5, 2008 Agreement between successor counsel
and the Wingate Firm ("Wingate Fee Agreement") states in part:
Based upon its review of the cases, The Law Firm of Rivkind,
Pedraza & Margulies [successor counsel], its successors, heirs
and assigns, agrees to honor Wingate's charging lien for
quantum meruit fees for legal services and case costs advanced
for all cases listed in Exhibit "A" should the crewmember(s)
exercise the right to retain the RPM Firm.
The Parties have agreed to set the quantum meruit fee due The
Wingate Firm, upon the successful resolution of the cases listed
in Exhibit "A" at forty percent (40%).
*******
As to the quantum meruit fees, The RPM Firm shall remit fifty
percent (50%) of the total quantum meruit fees due to The
Wingate Firm directly to the Wingate Firm and remit the
remaining fifty percent (50%) of the quantum meruit fee, to
Sotolongo, P.A., Wingate's former associate. The distribution
to the Sotolongo Firm is in consideration for the legal services
provided by Sotolongo in the cases listed in Exhibit "A". The
distribution noted above is based upon a separate Agreement
arrived at between the Wingate Law Firm, LLC and Sotolongo,
P.A.
13.
Although the Wingate Fee Agreement references a charging
lien, no such lien was ever filed with the Court.
14.
The February 15, 2008 Agreement between the Wingate Firm
and Sotolongo, P.A. ("Sotolongo Fee Agreement") states in part:
The Parties have agreed that Sotolongo will receive fifty
percent (50%) of all quantum meruit fees received by The
Wingate Firm upon the successful resolution of the cases listed
in Exhibit "A".
15.
At a subsequent hearing on February 21, 2008, counsel for
Wingate agreed with the Court on the record that Judge Stettin would have
jurisdiction to adjudicate the amount and entitlement to any fee resulting
from a charging lien. Wingate also stated himself that he was not going to
file any charging liens and that it was "undecided" whether he would seek
referral fees. The Fee Agreements between Wingate and Respondent, and
Wingate and the successor firm, were not brought to the Court's attention.
Respondent was also present at this hearing.
16.
On January 15, 2009, Respondent testified at a hearing
regarding RCL's Motion to Disqualify him from representation of clients
against RCL. When asked if he had received fees in any of the seventyseven (77) cases, Respondent repeatedly stated that he had not. Only once it
became apparent to Respondent during the questioning that opposing
counsel's inquiries were directed at the February 5, 2008 and/or February
15, 2008 Fee Agreements, did Respondent attempt to qualify his answers.
Opposing counsel then presented the Fee Agreements to the Court.
17.
When asked by Judge Stettin whether fees were paid to
Respondent per the terms of the Fee Agreements, Respondent acknowledged
that he had received fees.
18.
In response to the Court's inquiry regarding the amount
received, Respondent testified that it was ".. .not a lot of money.. .total up to
date, maybe twenty thousand."
In fact, as of the date of the hearing,
Respondent had been paid a total of $114,074.67 pursuant to the Fee
Agreements.
19.
Respondent misrepresented facts for financial gain and
demonstrated a lack of candor toward the tribunal.
20.
On January 23, 2009, after the Fee Agreements were brought to
the Court's attention, Judge Herbert Stettin issued an Order to Show Cause
directing Wingate, the Wingate Firm, Respondent and successor counsel to
appear and demonstrate why they should not be held in contempt of Court
for violation of the January 28, 2008 Order. A copy of the Order to Show
Cause with the Wingate and Sotolongo Fee Agreements attached is included
herein as Exhibit "B".
21.
On March 30, 2009, the Court entered a Contempt Order
finding Respondent and Sotolongo, P.A. in contempt for having knowingly
received fees in violation of the Court's Orders and for having testified
untruthfully concerning the receipt and amount of such fees. Respondent
was required to disgorge the sum of $114,074.67 into the Court registry and
was also disqualified from the representation of clients against RCL. The
f\
Contempt Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
22.
Respondent appealed the Contempt Order. On December 15,
2010, the Third District Court of Appeal issued an Order directing the trial
court to clarify that the Contempt Order may only apply to the original
seventy-seven (77) cases and that Respondent should not be disqualified
from representing clients against RCL in cases to which the fee-sharing
2
The relevant testimony referenced herein is quoted and cited in the
Contempt Order.
agreements did not apply. The Third DCA otherwise affirmed the Contempt
Order and the sanctions regarding the disgorgement of fees. The Third DCA
Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
23.
By reason of the foregoing, Respondent has violated Rules 4-
1.5 (illegal, prohibited or clearly excessive fees), 4-3.3 (candor toward the
tribunal), 4-8.4(a) (a lawyer shall not violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct or knowingly assist or induce another to do so), 4-8.4(c)
(dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 4-8.4(d) (conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
WHEREFORE, The Florida Bar respectfully requests that Pedro
Pablo Sotolongo, Respondent, be appropriately disciplined in accordance
with Chapter 3, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Respectfully submitted,
K
TONYA L.AVERY
Bar Counsel
Florida Bar No. 190292
The Florida Bar
444 Brickell Avenue, Ste. M-100
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 377-4445
KENNETH LAWRENCE MARVIN
Staff Counsel
Florida Bar No. 200999
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850)561-5839
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing Complaint
of The Florida Bar was sent via regular mail to Thomas D. Hall, Clerk,
Supreme Court of Florida, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida
32399; and a true and correct copy was sent via certified mail, return receipt
requested (7010 0780 0002 0071 4214), to Robert Michael Klein, Attorney
for Respondent, Klein Glasser Park Lowe and Pelstring, P.L., 9130 South
Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1225, Miami, Florida 33156 and to Tonya L.
Avery, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite M-100,
Miami, Florida 33131 on this —i—i
\\ft\
^JUQtomfrAr
w day
*f of -\-J
\ * ^*
. 2011.
KENNETH LAWRENCE MARVIN
Staff Counsel
NOTICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the trial counsel in this matter is
Tonya L. Avery, Bar Counsel, whose address and telephone number are 444
Brickell Avenue, Suite M-100, Miami, Florida 33131, (305) 377-4445. The
Respondent need not address pleadings, correspondence, etc., in this matter
to anyone other than trial counsel and to Kenneth L. Marvin, Staff Counsel,
The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TH
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA27
MACKARTHY CHARLES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CELEBRITY CRUISES (LTD),
Defendant.
/
OMNIBUS ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND RELATED MATTERS
This matter came before the Court for a hearing on all issues regarding discovery
concerning Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel ("Motion") on January 24,
2008 at 10:00 a.m., in this and seventy-six (76) other matters as detailed in the January 17, 2007
Order of Chief Administrative Judge Stuart M. Simons, which transferred and consolidated all
issues relating to said Motion to the undersigned for resolution, and the Court being duly advised
in the premises, and based upon the stipulation ma^e in open court that The Wingate Law Firm,
LLC and Jerrold Wingate will forthwith cease and desist from further representation in the
seventy-seven (77) cases cited in the Motion and will proceed, forthwith, to help effectuate the
transfer of the seventy-seven (77) files to other counsel of Plaintiffs' choosing in accordance
with the applicable Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rules of the Florida Bar, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
C, -o'E NO.: 07-44077 CA27
1.
Based upon the above referenced stipulation, the Motion to Disqualify is moot as
it pertains to the issue of disqualification of The Wingate Law Finn and Jeirold Wingate only.
The Wingate Law Firm and Jerrold Wingate shall forthwith cease and desist representation of the
Plaintiffs in the subject seventy seven (77) cases against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and
Celebrity Cruises, Inc., and shall comply with any and all applicable Rules of Judicial
Administration and Rules of the Florida Bar concerning their cessation of representation of
Plaintiffs.
2.
It is further ordered that the stay entered by The Honorable Stuart M. Simons in
the seventy-seven (77) cases is extended for forty-five (45) days from the entry of this Order.
3.
Each Plaintiff in each of the aforementioned seventy seven (77) cases shall be
notified that he/she has forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to file in his/her
individual case either a notice of appearance by new counsel or a statement that he/she wishes to
proceed pro se, which shall include his/her address and telephone number.
Should there be
disagreement on the form of notice to be provided to affected Plaintiffs, counsel for Mr. Wingate
and/or counsel for Mr. Sotolongo shall immediately notify the Court and a hearing will be
convened to resolve the matter.
4.
The Wingate Law Firm shall be permitted to file a charging lien for fees and costs
incurred in representing the subject Plaintiffs in accordance with the law in the subject seventyseven (77) cases.
Permission to file a charging lien is not to be construed as approval or
disapproval of the lien.
5.
Attorney Pedro Sotolongo's, an employee of The Wingate Law Firm, non-
agreement and opposition to withdrawal and/or disqualification is noted. As Mr. Sotolongo is
C. jE NO.: 07-44077 CA27
not counsel of record in any of the seventy-seven (77) cases, the Court defers ruling, without
prejudice, on the issue of his disqualification.
6.
By agreement of the parties all currently pending depositions are cancelled
without prejudice. Moreover, the subpoenas served on the non-party banks by Defendant's
counsel are deemed withdrawn and moot in light of the foregoing.
7.
A status conference is scheduled for March 17, 2008 at 8:00 a.m. to review the
status of this matter and, specifically, the issue of substitution of counsel.
8.
Nothing in this Order shall be deemed an adjudication or determination of
Defendant's incorporated request for additional relief including attorney's fees and sanctions, or
Defendant's right to seek same in this or other proceedings as may be permitted by law.
9.
The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami-Dade County, Florida on thi£
of January, 2008.
SENIOR/PRCUIT COURT JUDGE
THE HONORABLE HERBERT STETTIN
lien>eit Stettin, S-uk>r Judge
cc:
Counsel of Record
day
/T\ r~\ '•
M .ST£TT[NxCiri:uil Coun'vMackanhy-Celebnr. Cnjises\0rd:r Show Cause 1-22-09 wpd
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MlAMIDADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CHARLES MACKARTHY.
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
CELEBRITY CRUISES LTD.
CJM .... /
Defendant.
&DL
FTT P4__
__REC'D
i
AOc
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On January 24, 2008. the Wingate Law Firm, LLC and Jerrold Wingate voluntarily withdrew
from their representation as contingency fee counsel in this and the seventy-six (76) other matters
then pending, listed on Exhibit "A" attached to this Order.
Thereafter, the Court entered an Omnibus Order in which it stated that:
"The Wingate Law Firm and Jerrold Wingate shall forthwith cease
and desist representation of the Plaintiffs in the subject seventy
seven (77) cases against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity
Cruises, Inc.. and shall comply with any and all applicable Rules of
Judicial Administration and Rules of the Florida Bar concerning
their cessation of representation of Plaintiffs."
The Order also provided that:
"The Wingate Law Firm shall be permitted to file a charging lien for
fees and costs incurred in representing the subject Plaintiffs in
accordance with the law in the subject seventy-seven (77) cases.
Permission to file a charging lien is not to be construed as approval
or disapproval of the lien."
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
Peter S. Sotolongo was at the time of the January 28, 2008 Order an employee of The
Wingate Law Firm. He was not counsel of record in any of the seventy-seven (77) cases, hence he
had no right to fees from the cases.
Because their withdrawals as contingency fee counsel were voluntary; that is. they were not
the result of a discharge by their clients. Jerrold Wingate and The Wingate Law Firm forfeited any
right to compensation. Carbonic Consultants, Inc. v. Herzfeld& Rubin, Inc., 699 So. 2d 321, 323.
Nevertheless, despite their withdrawals and without notice to or approval by the Court.
Jerrold Wingate, The Wingate Law Firm and Peter S. Sotolongo entered into agreements with
successor counsel, Brett Rivkind and Rivkind Perdraza & Margulies. P.A. to secretly receive a
portion of any fees recovered in these cases. Copies of these contracts are attached as Exhibits "B"
and "C".
Mr. Sotolongo has testified that he (and therefore Jerrold Wingate and The Wingate Law
Firm) received fees pursuant to these contracts.
Upon consideration of these facts, it appears that Jerrold Wingate, The Wingate Law Firm
and Peter S. Sotolongo have intentionally subverted the Order of January 28,2008. In addition, Brett
Rivkind and Rivkind Pedraza & Margulies appear to have conspired to subvert the Order of
January 28, 2008.
Wherefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Jerrold Wingate, The Wingate Law Firm,
Peter S. Sotolongo. Brett Rivkind and Rivkind Pedraza & Margulies, P.A. are ordered to appear
before the undersigned Judge on February 20,2009, at 8:00 a.m. in Room 1501 of the Miami-Dade
-2-
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (21)
County Courthouse, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami. Florida 33130 to show cause why they should
not be held in contempt of Court for violation o^this Court's Order of January 28. 2008.
/&•
DONE and ORDERED this Cx'V/'tiay of January, 2009.
HERBERT STETTIN^X
Senior Circuit Judgex
Copies Furnished to:
Curtis J. Mase, Esquire
Peter S. Sotolongo, Esquire
Randolph M. Brombacher, Esquire
Miles A. McGrane, HI, Esquire
Brett A. Rivkind, Esquire
-3-
MASTER LIST OF CASES
1
Kenneth Frank v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Lid., Case No. 05-3092 C.A32
2
Agnelo Pereira v Royal Caribbean Cruises Lid.. Case No 05-3098 CA25
3.
£mr? Fidan v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 05-3405 CA03
4.
Jennifer Glasgow v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 05-5771 CA25
5.
Gonzalo Maiurana v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 05-7400 CA23
6.
Zsuzsanna Mihaly v. Royal Caribbean Cruises. Ltd., Case No. 05-12681 CA32
7.
Pablo Myers v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.; Case No. 05- ] 2784 CA21
8.
Kamuran Demirkaya v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 05-13863 CA25
9.
RejiMesquile \: Royal Caribbean Cruises. Lid., Case No. 05-16358 C A l O
] 0.
Mustafa Bayrak v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.; Case No. 05-19895 CA27
I ].
Adhana Torok v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 05-23) 69 CA30
1 2.
Glenroy Braid v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid.r Case No. 05-23 J 70 CA09
!3
Muleyrnan Muslu v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Case No. 05-23864 CA22
14.
Gabriel Torok v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 05-25099 CA21
15.
Mei'm Saaici v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 05-25355 CA08
16.
Christopher Fernandes v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 05-25404 CA23
1 7.
Jose Sanchez v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-00589 CA05
1 8.
Carson Welch v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 06-1258 CA02
19.
Marvin Baptiste v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-3974 CAO]
20.
Joseph Louis v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 06-3975 CA ] 5
21.
Joseph Eluid v. Royal Caribbean Cruises. Lid., Case No. 06-3 97 8 CA 3 2
22.
Ciprian C. Flueras, el alv. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-4472 CA05
23.
Engin Celen v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-4524 CA22
24.
Waller Cruz v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-5201 CA01
2 5.
Fatih Akdere v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 06-5524 CA 15
26.
Wendell Charles v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 06-5532 CA06
27.
Chrispina Lynch v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-05534 CA22
2fi. - Rodney Mitchell v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-7088 CA01
29.
Jonathan Delgado Hines v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., Case No. 06-7624 CA05
30.
Adanna Harry v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-7627 CA23
31.
Alton Karaca v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-8718 CA08
32.
Clavdiu Taposu v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-10739 CA05
33.
LeoPereirav. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-13945 CAlO
34.
Angel IsaelMayorga v. Celebriry Cruise Lines Inc., Case No. 06-14368 CA24
35.
Michael Housen v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 06-14590 CA31
36.
lonela Ramona Negru v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-16295 CA32
37.
Awadhesh Pal v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-17578 CA03
38.
Samran Pisychan v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-17579 CA05
39.
Salheesh Natarajan v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-18364 CAOI
40.
Agnieszka Huszcza Fernandes v. Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc., Case No. 06-18576 CA32
41.
Michel Farguson v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., Case No. 06- i 9546 CA i 3
42.
Mihaela Gabriela Jvanovici v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-19551 CA22
43.
Sherman Forbes v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-20000 CAOI
44.
Albert John v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-22018 CA04
45.
RaquelNedd v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-22533 CAOI
46.
Kelly Sharlon v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 06-26047 CA27
47.
Carlos Rankins v. Celebriry Cruises, Inc., Case No. 06-26895 CA23
.... ef
Exhibit "A"
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71 .
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
Marina Adamovic v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Case No. 06-27347 C.AI3
Roynel Escoe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid., Case No. 07-263 CAJ 1
Mark Dopwell v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-264 CAOJ
Sami Safak Jlgin v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Case No. 07-267 CA03
Jose Hernandez Kelly v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid, Case No. 07-4385 C'A20
Daniel Szeiler v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Lid.. Case No. 07-44 ] 0 CA02
ivenadSievanovic v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-] 0608 CA08
Aristide Palmer v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Case No. 07-10614 CA21
Eleo James Livingston v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Case No. 07-1061 7 CA1 1
Jettyffer Maxwell Brown v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. Case No. 07-10625 CA21
Ahmet YusufHanlioglu v. Celebriry Cruises, Inc., Case No. 07-12916 CA09
Henry A. Marin v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Case No. 07-14883 CA1 ]
Martin Funes v. Celebrity Cruises, Lid., Case No. 07-] 5188 CA05
Suri Fidiyanw v. Celebriry Cruises Inc. Case No. 07-18303 CA22
Simone Guy v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, lid.. Case 'No. 07-28016 CA03
Florin Seler v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-29510 CA20
Cindy McKenney and Jeffrey McKenney v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No.
07-30175 CA 10
Avanell Bravo v. Celebriry Cruises. Ltd., Case No. 07-31203 CA3!
Leon Perez Moreno v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-31392 CA 15
Dennis Hope v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-32360 CA20
Garth Williams v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-34554 CA25
Berny Lewis Robinson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-36979 CA05
Rajash Bhalla v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-38028 CA06
Wilbert Gurley v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-38031 CA22
Dharmarajan Selladurai v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-39322 CA05
Demiron Samuel v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-39324 CA23
Sivaprasad Gottapu v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-39328 CA04
Ericka Bodden v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 07-44074 CA32
MacKarthy Charles v. Celebrity Cruises Ltd.', Case No. 07-44077 CA27
Villabohs v. Celebriry Cruises Inc. CASE NO.: 08-462-CA 10
17419/255854v3
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LAW FIRM R1VKIHD, PEDRAZA & MARGULtES, P,A. AND THE
WINGATE LAW FIRM, LLC
In order to facilitate the ability of numerous crewmember to hire competent, wellqualified legal counsel with experience in handling crewmember claims, The Law Firm of
Rivkind, Pedraia 6 Marguiies {RPM Firm) have agreed to accept the legal representation of
any and/or all the crewmembers listed in Exhibit "A" should the crewrnember(s) listed in
Exhibit "A" elect to retain the .RPM Firm.
Further, in consideration for legal services performed by the Wingate Law Firm, LLC
(Wingate Firm) prior to the Firm's withdrawal as ettorney of record for Plaintiffs listed in
Exhibit "A" and for such other valuable considerations as have been agreed to by the Forties,
The RPM Firm offers to compensate The Wingate Firm for legal services performed (quantum
meruit) in the cases listed jn Exhibit "A" and to reimburse the Wingate Firm for all case
related costs advanced by the Wingate Firm in said cases. This agreement 1s based upon the
following:
1.
After a review of the cases and the legal work performed by the Wingate Firm,
It is agreed by the parties that substantial legal services have been provided 1n the cases
listed in Exhibit "A".
2.
Based upon its review of the cases, The Law Firm of Rivkind, Pedraza 6
Marguiies, its successors, heirs and assigns, agrees to honor Wingate's charging lien for
quantum meruit fees for legal services and case costs advanced for all cases listed in Exhibit
"A" should the crewmember(s) exercise the right to retain The RPM Firm.
3.
The Parties have agreed to set the quantum meruit fee due The Wfngate Firm,
upon the successful resolution of the cases listed in Exhibit "A" at forty percent (40%). This
figure was established after discussion, review and in recognition of the fact that many of the
cases are presently set for trial after being extensively worked up by The Wingate Firm. The
work performed to date by the Wingate Firm has, therefore, significantly reduced the work
required by The RPM Firm to bring these cases to a successful resolution. The above noted
quantum meruit fee agreement was agreed to by the Parties to facilitate the clients' abilities
to more rapidly prosecute their cases, avoid undue delays in distribution of proceeds to the
clients and avoid potential future litigation regarding disputes over the value of the quantum
msrult services performed,
A.
The Parties further agree that upon successful resolution of the case(s), The
RPM Firm shall reimburse all case costs advanced by The Wingate Firm shall be reimbursed
directly to The Wingate Firm. As to the quantum meruit fees, The RPM Firm shall remit fifty
percent (50%) of the total quantum meruit fees due to The Wingate Firm directly to the
Wingate Firm and remit the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the quantum meruit fee, to
Sotolongo, P.A., Wingate's former associate. The distribution to the Sotolongo Firm is in
consideration for the legal services provided by Sotolongo in the cases listed in Exhibit "A".
The distribution noted above is based upon a separate Agreement arrived at between the
Wingate Law Firm, LLC and Sotolongo, P.A.
5.
All payments for quantum meruit attorney fees due and paid to the Wingate
Law Firm, LLC shall be made solely from the recovery of fees, if any, made by The RPM Firm
in the prosecution of cases listed in Exhibit "A", There will be no additional quantum meruit
Exhibi
attorney fees charged to the Clients listed in Exhibit "A" to satisfy the Wingate Law Firm
charging lien for quantum merutt attorney fees. Said quantum merult fees due the Wingate
Law Firm, LLC pursuant to this Agreement, shall be paid as directed above no later than ten
(10) days after receipt of funds from the Defendants and/or their carriers)
6.
The Wingate Firm will provide The RPM Firm with a copy of outstanding costs
on each of the cases listed in Exhibit "A" within thirty days of The RPM Firm filing a notice of
appearance in each of the cases.
7.
Upon successful conclusion of the cases listed in Exhibit "A", Rivkind shall
provide Wingate and Sotolongo with a signed copy of the closing statement including in that
statement a list of all costs due the Wingate Firm.
8.
Should any of the clients in the cases listed in Exhibit "A" who chose to hire
The RPM Firm thereafter discharge the RPM Firm and hire other counsel, The RPM Firm shall
notify The Wingate Firm and The Sotolongo Firm within five (5) days of such an event and file
a charging Hen on any case so situated. Upon satisfaction of any such charging lien, The
Wingate Firm shall be entitled to its agreed quantum merult fee based upon The RPM Firms
recovery in said case{s).
AGREED, this $ —
mnrtfjtj
day of February, 2008 in Miami, Florida,
^^/^n^^j^j*»
Did K. Wingate] Es'
iWingate Law Firm, LLC
66 W. Flagler St. -Suite 410
Miami, FL33130
Brett Rivkind, Esq.
ftivkind Pedraza & Margulies
66 W. Flagler St. - Suite 600
Miami, FL33130
Witness
Witness
Sototortjo, P.A.
66 ffT Flagler St. -Suite
Mieml, FL33130
Witness
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WINGATE LAW FIRM AND SOTOLONGO, P.A,
In consideration for legal services performed by Peter P, Sotolongo, Esq.
(Sotolongo) prior to The Wingate Firm's withdrawal as attorney of record for Plaintiffs
listed in Exhibit "A", and for such other valuable considerations as have been agreed
to by the Parties, The Wingate Law Firm offers to compensate Sotolongo for legal
services performed (quantum meruit) in the cases listed In Exhibit "A". This
agreement is based upon the following:
1.
After a review of the cases and the legal work performed by Sotolongo
it is agreed by the parties that substantial legal services have been provided by
Sotolongo in the cases listed in Exhibit "A".
2.
The Parties have agreed that Sotolongo will receive fifty percent (50%)
of all quantum meruit fees received by The Wingate Firm upon the successful
resolution of the cases listed in Exhibit "A". This figure was established after
discussion, review and in recognition of the fact that many of the cases listed In
Exhibit "A" were extensively worked up by Sotolongo during his tenure with The
Wingate Firm.
3.
The Parties further agree that The Wingate Firm has authorized The
Rivkind, Pedraza Et Margulles (RPM) Firm, new counsel of record for clients listed in
Exhibit "A", to remit fifty percent (50£) of the total quantum meruit fees due to The
Winsate Firm directly to the Wingate Firm and remit the remaining fifty percent (50%)
of the quantum meruit fee, directly to Sotolongo, P.A,
A.
The Parties agree that all case related costs accrued by the Wingate
Firm in prosecution of the cases listed In Exhibit "A", shall be paid directly to the
Wingate Firm only.
A GREED, this
/
dav of February, 2008 in Miami, Florida.
errold K. Wingate, Esq.
he Wingate Law Firm, LLC
66 W. Flagler St. - Suite 410
Miami, FL 33130
{^^TB/SotolDn:
Soterfofigo, P,A.
66<Vf Flagler St. - Suite
Miami, FL 33130
Exhibit "C"
'
'nftR-31-5009 10:4B FromiDBR
MIflMI
LE6flL5
P.l'lS
To:3053T7E117
3053476S3S
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CHARLES MACKARTHY,
C5«"!;E
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA §$£
CELEBRITY CRUISES LTD.,
<,
Defendant.
CONTEMPT ORDER
At a January 24, 2008, hearing concerning Defendant's Motion lo Disqualify PlainiifTs
Counsel, The Wingate Law Firm and Jcrrold Wingate voluntarily withdrew as counsel for the
Plaintiffs in each of Ac cases described on Exhibit A. Mr, Wingate and his associate Mr. Sotolongo
were present at that hearing. This withdrawal, which was confirmed by Order dated January 28,
2008, required any claim by The Wingate Law Firm for a charging lien for fees and costs to be
adjudicated by this Court. The Order iilso noted that attorney Mr. Sotolongo, who %vas a salaried
employee of The Wingate Law Firm, was not counsel of re-cord in any of the seventy-seven (77)
cases.
One day after the hearing, on January 25,2008, Mr. Sotolongo incorporated Sololongo, P.A.
A copy of the Articles of Incorporation arc attached as Exhibit B,
On February 5,200S, Wingate, Sotolongo, The Wingate Law Firm, LT,C and Sotolongo,
PA., entered inlo an Agreement with the law firm of Rivkincl, Pedrazn & Margulies, P.A. (RPM)
which agreed upon a division offers in those cases in which RPM became counsel of record. This
HP1R-31-B009 10:48 From.'DBR
MIRMI
LEGftLS
3053476S3S
To:3053772117
P.£'12
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
Agreement and a later one dated February 15. 2008, between Mi1. Wiiigaie and Mr, Sotolongo were
made without the knowledge of this Court and without the written consent of any of the seventyseven (77) Plaintiffs. The Agreements are attached as Exhibits C and D.
Sixteen days later, on February 21,200R, when Mr. Wingate and Mr. Sotolongo were again
before the Court, they chose not Lo disclose the existence of these Agreements despite the fact that
the issue of Wingate's right to fees was again discussed between the Court and his counsel:
I
The Court: Hang on one second. If you file a notice of charging
lien, you submit to the jurisdiction of the Court in which it was
filed.
Mr. McGranc: Stipulated.
The Court: That Is where you will adjudicate lha iv.vue of amount
and entitlement
Mr. MeGreine: Against the client.
The Court: Well, in this case, the client is being paid in full, lie
has no further interest in the case.
Mr, McGrane: Correct.
The Court: He has no interest in the fee. He is obligated in all to
forfeit or not (sic). The next issue would then be, if it is, who would
get it, but we are not there. Do you agree then to have It heard by
ma or do you •warn to-] don'/ think you have a choice,
Mr. McGrane: No, I don't.
The Court: You don't.
Mr. MuCrrane: And to answer your question, even if I had a choice
I would agree. How is that for sucking up, Judge?
Emphasis added. Exhibit E, page 14, line 10 - page 15, line 9,
-2-
MflR-31-SB09 10:48 From.'DBR
MIflMI
LESflLS
305347SS3S
To: 30S377S117
P.3'1H
CASH NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
At the same hearing, when asked i f he was going to be seeking referral fees on any of the
seventy-seven (77) cases, Mr. Wiagatc stated that he was "undecided", despite the fact, that he had
already signed the February 5,2008 Agreement with RPM for the .division of fees. By that dale
RPM had become counsel in fifty-one (51) of the cases listed on Exhibit A:
Mr. Mase: Does Mr. Wingale. intend on cases that are being given
to other firms, is he going to receive a referral fee? Because if he is,
I will assert a claim.
The Court: I heard him say that he had no present Intention to seek
a fee in any other case than those three.
Mr. Mase: is that accurate?
Mr. Wingate: 1 am not going to file any charging liens.
Mr. Mase: Are you going to seek a referral fee on cases that go to
other firm.'!?
Mr. Wingate: I am undecided at this point.
Exhibit E, page 20, lines 5-20,
The Court: There's a status conference coming up'Marcb 8th or so.
That is for you telling me how far ajong you have gotten in getting
replacement counsel,
Mr. Wingate: At this point, we have 51 of the clients signed up and
we anticipate having The Court: Signed up meaning?
Mr. Wingate: With new lawyers.
Mr. McGrane: Can we tell the Court?
Mr. Wingate: Yes.
•3-
MflR-31-2009 18:48 FromiDBR
MIflMI
LESftLS
3053476S3S
To:305377E117
P.4'12
;
!
•_
:
j
~l
CASH NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
Mr. McGranc: It is Brett Rivkind.
Exhibit E, page 24, lines 5-16.
Mr, Wmgaic again chose to keep the existence of tbe February 5,2008 Agreement a secret from the.
Court.
The February 5,2008 fee sharing Agreement (Exhibit C) is a fascinating document. It refers
no less than eleven (11) times to Mr, Wingate's rights to a quantum meruir recovery for work
performed in the seventy-seven (77) files listed on Exhibit A, and four (4) times to a charging lien
5
as the means for enforcing the right to quantum meruii attorney tees. It does H2t refer to the
Obligation agreed to by bis lawyer to have such claims heard by this Court.
The Agreement also states;
3. The Parties have agreed to set the quantum meruii fee due Tbe
Wingate Firm, upon the successful resolution of the cases listed in
Exhibit "A" at forty percent (40%). This figure was established
after discussion, review and in recognition of the fact that many of
the cases arc presently set for trial after being extensively worked up
by The Wingate Firm. The work performed to date by the Wingate
Firm has, therefore, significantly reduced the work required by The
RPM Firm to bring these cases to a successful resolution. The
above noted quantum mervil fee agreement was agreed to by the
Parties to facilitate the clients1 abilities to more rapidiy prosecute
their cases, avoid undue delays in distribution of proceeds to tbe
clients and avoid potential future litigation regarding disputes over
the value of the quantum meruit services performed.
;
\
i
These high sounding sentiments arc- completely belied by the fact that the fee sharing was agreed
upon before any of the fifty-one (51) Plain Li Hs ever became a client of the RPM firm, and the only
I
possible client approval to Wingate, Sotolongo and their law firms having a. right to a portion of the.
•
-4-
i
3
I
3
!
i
MftR-31-2005 10:49 From:DBR
MIAMI
LEGflLS
305347S636
To:3BS377S11?
CASE NO.: 07^44077 CA (27)
settlement proceeds appears in a series of closing statements provided to the Court. Copies are
attached as Exhibit F.
, None of these statements reflects the client's approval to a co-counsel or fee sharing
agreement at the time they retained RPM. Some, but by no means all, reflect approval by the client
to a sharing of attorney's fee and none of the statements are signed by Wingate, Sotolongo or their
law firms. Very few of the statements contain the name of Mr. Sotolongo or his firm, meaning that
there Ui no evidence that the client ever agreed to his retention or to any payment to Mr Sotolongo.
More importantly, the fee sharing Agreement is hopelessly and irrevocably unenforceable.
Fipst, it is on its face an agreement in violation of Rule 4-1.5 of the Florida Code of Professional
Responsibility because it requires the payment of an unreasonable and dearly excessive
fee. The
*.
Agreement states that RPM will pay Wingalc (and Sotolongo) 40%. Assuming this means 40% of
RPM"j- fees and not 40% of the Plaintiffs recovery to every one of ihe cases, the percentage to be
paid lo Wmgsie and Sotolongo is in excess of the limit imposed io tbc Rule, which sets the
maximum referral fee at no more than 25% of the loial fee. This Agreement divides the fees
recovered between the three law firms without the written consent of the client, as is also required
*
by Rule 4-1.5
I conclude that it is a secret, self-serving and illegal arrangement intended as a means of
evading this Court's order concerning Wingate's claim to fees and costs from files which he
abandoned
In Barwick, Dillian & Lambert PAv JZwing, 646 So.2d 776,779 (Fla, 3d DCA 1995), thu
court reiterated the rule that \vhen a contingency fee lawyer is discharged without cause, the only
-5-
P.5'12
MfiR-31-2009 IB!49 From:DBR
MIflMI
LESflLS
To:30537?Sll7
3053476S36
P.6'12
CASE NO.: 07-44077 C.A (27)
basis for compensation for work performed is quantum meruit. Thai rule is not applicable, however,
where the lawyer voluntarily wi thdraws before completion of the work required under his agreement.
In such cases, the withdrawing lawyer forfeits arty right lo compensation Faro v. llomantt 641 So.
2d 69,71 (Flu. 1994) ("We hold that when an attorney withdraws frorn representation upon his own
volition and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits rights to compensation,").
An argument might bs made if the lawyers involved were inexperienced that they were
-unaware of this rule, but each signatory to the Agreements of February 5, and 15, 2008, is an
experienced contingency fee lawyer. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Next, the entire xindcrpinning of the February, 2008 Agreements assumes that a quantum
mentit recovery can be created and self-imposed upon proceeds from litigation without a
determination by the Court of what constitutes a reasonable fee under the circumstances of each case.
That is simply wrong, as is the notion lhat a quantum meruit claim as to work performed in one case
can be enforced by imposing the same percentage of recovery upon fees recovered in a large group
of cases.
' '
And of course, the entire Agreement fails because The Wingatc Law Firm, having agreed
that tills Court would determine its fee claims, could nol then subvert that agreement by secretly
arranging to receive fees in violation of this Court's order. Having already determined that The
\Vingate Law Firm and Mr, Wingatc engaged in a commercial bribery scheme, the Court certainly
will not allow the enforcement of the Agreement by which they profit from their misconduct.
Ail of what has been said concerning Mr. Wingatc and his firm applies with equal force to
Mr. Soloiongo and Sotolongo, P.A. In addition to the reasons already expressed, Mr. Sotoiongo and
-6-
P1flR-31-£009 10:43 From'DBR
MIflMI
LEGflLS
3053476636
To:3053772117
P.7'12
CASH NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
his firm are barred from enforcing any rights under the February 5, and February 15, 2008
Agreements because they have no right to quantum muriiit fees in any cvenl. Mr. Sotoloiigo was an
employee of The Wingutc LiiwFirni at the time he worked on the cases in question. His agreement
was to be paid a salary for his work; there was no other fee due him based upon a contingency or
otherwise. None of the seventy-seven (77) Plaintiffs ever agreed to pay him a fee, cither before or
after the February 5,2008 Agreement. Without such an agreement, Mr. Sotolongo could have no
claim to any money due the seventy-seven (77) Plaintiffs. Sotolongo, P.A. never provided any
services in Lhe cases in question- It was formed after The Wingate Law Firm withdrew as counsel.,
hence it could not be entitled to a quantum maruit fee
Further, because Mr. Sotolongo signed the February 5, 2008, Agreement with actual
knowledge of the Court's ruling that no fees were lu be paid without Court approval, he too, sought
to subvert the Orders of this Court.
His misconduct was compounded by his false and misleading testimony on January 15,2009.
On that date, Mr. Sotolongo testified at the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Disqualify him
from representation of clients against RCL. In the course of the hearing, when, asked if he had
received fees in any of the seventy-seven (77) cases, he testified as follows;
Mr. Mase: Did you participate in attorney's fees recovered in those
cases where you worked at the Wingatc Law Firm?
Mr. Brombachen Objection.
Mr. Sotolongo: ,W«, I just got my salary.
Mr. Brombachcr: I object to that. What do you mean, participate?
MftR-3l-£009 10:43 From:DBR MIRMI
LEGPlLS
3053476635
To:305377S117
P.B'12
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
The Court: Get a piece of the recovery.
Mr. Sotolongo: No. I just got my regular salary.
Mr. Mase; So you did not get any percentage or any amount of
those fees?
Mr. Sotolongo: No.
Mr. Mase: At any point in time have you ever received any
percentage or amount of fees on those cases?
Mr. Sotolongo: No.
Mr. Mase; Have you ever entered into any land of agreement
whereby you v/ere going to get a percentage or piece of the
attorney's fees for cases where the Wingate Law Firm represented
crew members or plaintiffs for Royal Caribbean and Celebrity?
Mr. Sotolongo: No.
Mr. Mase: You never have?
Mr. Sotolongo: No. You mean when I was working with. Mr.
Wingate?
Mr, Mase: At any time.
- •
Mr. Sololcmgo: Let me talk to Mr. Brombachcr.
Emphasis added. Exhibit G, piige 40, line 14 - page 41, line 20.
Mr. Mase's inquiries obviously made Mr. Sotolongo aware that RCL was referring to the Fee
sharing Agreement he signed on February 5,200?!. Tt was only then that he attempted to explain his
answers;
Mr. Mase: All 1 want to know, Mr. Sotolongo, is whether or not
you ever had any kind of arrangement whereby he was going to or
participate in the few those cases generated?
-8-
MflR-31-B009 10:49 From:DBR
MIflMI
LEGPtLS
3B5347SS3S
To:30S3772117
P.S'IS
CASE NO.; 07-44077 CA (27)
Mr. Soiolongo: When I was working with Mr. Wingate, the answer
to that question is no.
Exhibit G, page 41, line 24 - page 42, line 4.
RCL then revealed the fee sharing Agreement to the Court for the first time. The Court
questioned Mr, Sotolongo to find out whether he had received fees under the Agreement:
The Court: Did the Rivkind firm settle these cases and pay over
monies as the agreement provides?
Mr. Sotolongor Yes, Judge.
The Court; And paid them both to Wingatc and to you.
Mr. Sotolongo; Yes, your Honor.
Exhibit G, page 48, line 21 - page 49, line 2,
Once the Court became aware ofthe existence of Ihe fee sharing Agreement, Mr. Sotolongo
continued to misrepresent to the Court the extent of his receipt of money.
The Court: You have a schedule of how much was paid to you?
Mr, Sotolongo: Not one ready, but i can prepare one, I guess.
The Court: Approximately how much was it?
Mr. Sotolongo: It is small, not a lot of money. You know £5,000 here, $2,000 (here.
The Court: Total?
Mr Sotolongo: Total up to date, maybe nvsnty thcnwand.
(Emphasis added). Exhibit G, page 49, lines 3-11.
-9-
MflR-31-2009 10:49 From:DBR
MIflMI
LEGflLS
3053476636
To:305377S117
P.IB'IE
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
Mr. Rivkind, who paid the fees to Mr. Sotolongo and Mr. Wingate, confirmed that Mr.
Sololongo had actually been paid a total of SI 14,074.67 under the fee Agreement up to that time.
Mr. Wingate received a total of $219,653,07 for fees and costs. A schedule of the monies paid to
Mr. Wingate and to Mr. Sotolongo is attached as Exhibit H.
Mr. Sotolongo's statement thai he collected "maybe twenty thousand" was a clear
misrepresentation to the Court. The disparity is too large to suggest that it was simply a memory
lapse. The RPM schedule of payments reflects that he collected $22,000 hi fees in one case and
between $5,000 and $10,000 in fees in each of seven other cases. See, Exhibit H. Mr. Sotolongo's
lack of candor is not attributable to simple negligence or a. bad memory.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Having concluded that Mr. Wingate, Mr. Sotolongo and their law firms have no entitlement
to enforce any rights under their fee sharing contract with the RPM lasv firm, it is hereupon
ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
Jerrold Wingate and The Wingiitc Law Firm arc found to be in. contempt of this
Court for having wilfully disobeyed its Orders regarding the right to seelc fees and costs arising out
of the seventy-seven (77) cases in question, and for having knowingly received fees and costs in
violation of this Court's Orders.
2.
Pedro Sotolongo and Sotolongo, P.A. are found to be in contempt of this Court for
having knowingly received fees in violation of this Court's Orders and for having testified
untruthfully concerning the receipt and amount of such fees.
-10-
r
$
MflR-31-2009 10:49 From:DBR
MIflMI
LEGflLS
3053476S36
To:305377S117
P.11'12
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
'*
t
\a.
3.
Although the evidence is not sufficient to find that Rjvkind, Pedraza £ Margulics,
s
P.A, knowingly violated this Court's Orders by conspiring with Jerrold Wingate, Pedro Sotol ongo
\
and their law firms to receive fees <ind costs from the seventy-seven (77) cases in question,
nevertheless, it appears the RPM law firm did improperly pay money to Mr. Wingate and Mr.
;
t
\
Sotolongo in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. There is no evidence any client ever
\
knew of or agreed to the February 5, 2008 Agreement.
\
The appropriate conclusion in this
i
$
circumstance is to refer the matter to the Florida Bar to lake such action as it deems appropriate,
|
t
including, without limitation, a determination as to whether any of the fees and costs paid to Mr.
Wingate and Mr. Sotolongo, should be repaid by RPM.
4
The monies received by Mr. Wingate and by Mr. Rotolongo as described in Exhibit
G to this Order arc required lo be repaid to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of the dale of this
Order; Jerrold Wingatc and The Wingate Law Finn shall pay the sum of 5333,727.74, representing
the total paid under the February 5, 2008 Agreement, and Pedro Sotolongo and Sotolongo, P.A.
shall pay the sura of $114,074.67, representing the total of fees received from RPM. The Clerk shall
hold these monies subject to the further Order of the Court.
5.
RPM has provided a list of the settlement status of cases handled by the firm. A
copy is attached as Exhibit I. For each of those cases noted as "Settled, Not Disbursed", RPM shall
forthwith pay all of the fees and costs otherwise payable to Mr. Wingate, Mr. Sotolongo and their
law firms under the February 5, 2008 Agreement, to the Clerk of the Court to be held as provided
above. A copy of such payment shall be provided to the Court.
"i
MftR-31-2009 10:49 From:DBR
MIflMI
LEGFlLS
3053476636
To:305377£117
P.12'l£
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
6.
Defendant's Second Motion to Disqualify Peter Sotolongo is granted. As a
consequence of his contempt of this Court, Peter Sotolongo and Sotoioiigo, P.A. arc disqualified
from the representation of clients against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity Cruises, Ltd.
7.
The Court reserves jurisdiction*o compel compliance with the terms of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED this Q"^ clay of March, 2009.
]
i
r
5
STEfn "
Senior Circuit Ju^ge
'
»
Copies Furnished to:
Curtis J. Mase, Esquire
Miles A. McGrane, JIT, Esquire
Peter S. Sotolongo, Esquire
Randolph M. Brombaeher, Esquire
Brett A. Rjvkind, Esquire
Judd Rosen, Esquire
Ross B. Toyne, Esquire
\
-12-
1
Btetrtct Court of
State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2010
Opinion filed December 15, 2010.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D09-1331
Lower Tribunal No. 07-44077
Peter Sotolongo and Peter Sotolongo, P.A.,
Appellants,
vs.
Celebrity Cruises, Ltd.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Herbert Stettin,
Judge.
John G. Crabtree and George R. Baise Jr.; Stephens, Lynn, Klein and Robert
M. Klein, for appellants.
Mase Lara Eversole and Curtis J. Mase and Richard D. Lara and Valentina
M. Tejera, for appellee.
Before WELLS, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
EXHIBIT
Peter Sotolongo and Peter Sotolongo, P.A. (collectively, "Sotolongo")
appeal from an order finding Sotolongo in contempt of court. Based upon a review
of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding
Sotolongo in contempt of court in the seventy-seven cases to which the fee-sharing
agreements applied. See Carnival Corp. v. Beverly, 744 So. 2d 489, 496 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1999) ("A court may hold a person or party in direct criminal contempt for
the violation of a court order or for an act that is contemptuous on its face.");
Henriquez v. Temple. 668 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
However, because there is no evidence or finding of any misconduct in the
cases to which the fee-sharing agreements do not apply, we find that the trial court
abused its discretion in disqualifying Sotolongo from representing clients against
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and Celebrity Cruises, Ltd. ("RCL") in those cases.
Accordingly, we remand with directions for the trial court to enter an order
clarifying that the contempt order applies only to the original seventy-seven cases,
and that Sotolongo is not disqualified from representing clients against RCL in
cases to which the fee-sharing agreements did not apply. With that exception, we
otherwise affirm the contempt order and the sanctions of repayment of fees and
disqualification as it applies to the original seventy-seven cases.
Affirmed as modified.