Skip to main content
Cloudy icon
81º

3 South Fla. lawyers face disciplinary action

No description found

PEMBROKE PARK, Fla. – Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 15 attorneys; disbarring three, revoking the licenses of four and suspending eight. One attorney received more than one form of discipline and was also ordered to pay restitution.

Below is a list of the South Florida lawyers who has cases before the Florida Supreme  Court.

Recommended Videos



As an official arm of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 98,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida.

**Raymond R. Beitra, 5892 W. 3rd Court, Hialeah.

The Court granted Beitra's request for a disciplinary revocation, effective immediately, with leave to seek readmission after five years, following a June 2 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1992) Disciplinary revocation is equivalent to disbarment. Beitra had several Florida Bar disciplinary complaints pending against him regarding contempt, neglect of client matters and inadequate communication. (Case No. SC13-1290)

**Stuart Carl Hoffman, 1075 Broken Sound Pkwy. N.W., Suite 102, Boca Raton.

The Supreme Court suspended Hoffman for 91 days, effective immediately, following a July 25 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1990) Hoffman was found in contempt for failing to comply with the conditions of a July 16, 2013, suspension order. Specifically, Hoffman was required to provide a sworn affidavit to The Florida Bar within 30 days of his suspension, listing the names and addresses of all persons and entities that were furnished a copy of his suspension order. (Case No. SC13-2420)

**Tara Renee James, 1835 N.E. Miami Gardens Drive #347, North Miami Beach.

James was suspended by the Supreme Court until further order, effective 30 days from a July 16 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1996) James was found in contempt for non-compliance and failure to respond to an official Bar inquiry. (Case No. SC14-895)

Follow Jeff Weinsier on Twitter @jweinsier

Follow Local 10 News on Twitter @WPLGLocal10


Loading...

Recommended Videos