Miami, FL — The Florida Supreme Court has imposed a three-year suspension on Miami lawyer Joseph P. George Jr., after he was named the sole beneficiary of an account exceeding $2 million, belonging to his elderly clients who were reported to be suffering from cognitive decline. This decision highlights the ongoing challenges and ethical considerations in the legal representation of vulnerable adults.
The issue surfaced following a complaint filed by Rita Florez and Patricia Ann Toro Savitz of the Florida Bar, which brought to the fore significant concerns about the potential exploitation of elderly clients. George did not contest the allegations, opting against a defense in the proceedings.
Initially, George had been tasked with overseeing the welfare and finances of Larry Larsen and Nancy Crooks, an elderly couple who were brought to the attention of the Department of Children and Families due to issues of self-neglect. His responsibilities included their daily care management and facilitating their move to a more suitable living facility, the Palace Gardens.
During his tenure as their legal representative, George involved himself in the couple’s estate planning. It was during this period that Crooks, advised about the potential for their personal account assets to revert to the state, proposed George as the transfer-on-death beneficiary—a suggestion that led to his subsequent legal troubles.
The investigation revealed George was made a “friend” and the only beneficiary of the couple’s account without him advising them of the inherent conflict of interest this posed. Further exacerbating the matter, an exploitation report flagged the mental decline of Larsen and Crooks, calling into question their capacity to make such decisions.
Legal experts have pointed out the pivotal role of Florida Bar Rule 4-1.14, which addresses the representation of clients with diminished capacities. “This case serves as a critical reminder of the dangers of overlooking such fundamental ethical guidelines,” stated Anthony V. Alfieri, professor at the University of Miami School of Law and director of its Center for Ethics and Public Service.
According to the judgment, George violated multiple Florida Bar rules, including those against obtaining gifts from a client, representing a client under a disability, engaging in fraudulent conduct, and actions prejudicial to the administration of justice. While the court stopped short of disbarment, it did mandate him to pay a $1,250 fine in addition to his suspension.
The legal community continues to debate the appropriateness of the disciplinary actions taken. Bob Jarvis, a professor at Nova Southeastern University College of Law, commented on the court’s decision to allow George to continue handling his family’s trust. “Given the circumstances, a stricter oversight, like appointing a co-trustee, seemed appropriate,” Jarvis remarked.
Fellow legal ethics expert, H. Scott Fingerhut from Florida International University College of Law, acknowledged the severity of the punishment but emphasized the educational value it may serve. “While not career-ending, a three-year suspension certainly underscores the seriousness of the breach and serves as an important lesson in professional responsibility and integrity,” Fingerhut noted.
This case not only underscores the vulnerabilities of the elderly in the legal system but also reinforces the critical need for attorneys to adhere strictly to ethical practices, especially when dealing with clients who have impaired decision-making capacities. As this situation continues to unfold, it is a stark reminder of the delicate balance lawyers must maintain between client interests and strict ethical standards.