An ‘incompetent’ divorce lawyer and a stalker among disciplined lawyers in Miami area

Disappearing on clients, disappearing on the Florida Bar, and a stalker who should have disappeared after a breakup put several South Florida attorneys on the most recent list of attorneys disciplined by the state Supreme Court.

The list in alphabetical order:

Steven Amster, Coral Gables

Steven Amster (admitted to the Florida Bar in 1994) wasn’t ignoring the Florida Bar’s request for information about a grievance concerning a 2018 client refund that, Amster told the Bar, he sent to the person he believed to be the client’s ex-wife and legal agent.

The Bar says Amster was “attempting to secure affidavits from the individuals that would have knowledge of his payments of fee reimbursements. He has had limited success in that regard,” but has started refund payments to the former client filing the grievance.

Still, Amster was publicly reprimanded for being late, and, technically, in contempt.

READ MORE: A Florida city’s former attorney gives up his law license. He abused a friend’s daughter

Chelsea Haritan, Pompano Beach

The Bar wanted an explanation for Chelsea Haritan’s behavior during a 2020 case, behavior that it said included: failing to “respond and coordinate a deposition” on three different dates in April; not showing up to an April 27, 2020, deposition; not producing any documents listed in part of a subpoena; failing to attend a hearing; and sending text messages advising someone to disregard a subpoena.

On May 12 of this year, Haritan (admitted in 2012) emailed the Bar to say she’d just received its April 22 letter asking for a response by May 9. She wanted an extension of time.

“I’m on a leave of absence until July (after the subject case is set for mediation) and had help to assist with accounts receivables and closing my practice, and to attend the mediation on my behalf to settle liens and outstanding fees/costs regarding the case at issue as my office has liens for fees/costs,” Haritan wrote. “The person I had assisting me can no longer be trusted and I need additional help, whether that be an inventory attorney appointed or another representative.”

The Bar said that email didn’t count as a response, and requested a response by June 13; eventually, granted an extension at Haritan’s request to June 28; granted another extension, but only to July 1. Haritan still hadn’t filed an answer and hadn’t filed a response to the Bar’s petition for contempt.

Beginning Wednesday, Haritan is suspended until she “has fully responded in writing to the Bar’s inquiry,” the state Supreme Court said.

Arnold Hessen, Miami

Arnold Hessen, a member of the Bar since 1968, was part of Hessen Schimmel & De Castro, which registered with the state in 1985. A Bar complaint said Robert Schimmel’s 2012 lawsuit against Hessen revealed $12,856 in the firm’s trust account from a 2003 real estate deal. That money belonged to client Thomas Hinsey, but neither Hinsey nor his wife could be found.

The money sat in the trust account, the complaint said, until 2017, when Hessen disbursed the money to Arnold Hessen, P.A. When the Bar asked Hessen to explain taking the $12,856 from his previous law firm’s account to his solo law firm, the complaint says Hessen claimed they were “earned fees and no longer available” because he had “… a valid lien for services for the annual handling of the Cox/Hinsey undisbursed monies over a period of 14 years.”

The Bar felt differently, saying rule 5-1.1(b) means “money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose be maintained in trust and must be applied only to that purpose. Such funds are not subject to counterclaim or set off for attorney’s fees.”

Faced with this Bar complaint, the 79-year-old Hessen pulled the disciplinary revocation lever without leave to reapply for readmission. The state Supreme Court granted Hessen’s petition. The Bar complaint disappears, but so does Hessen’s Bar membership.

Mary Hudson, Palm Beach Gardens

To the Bar, Mary Michele Hudson (admitted in 2011) disappeared in 2019. Snail mail about a complaint got returned to the Bar. Emails weren’t answered. Phone numbers didn’t work. State records said Hudson didn’t make the annual filing for her firm, Maverick Law, and it was administratively dissolved that year.

Or, maybe she disappeared earlier — when Bar investigator John Berrena went by Maverick Law’s offices, 4400 PGA Blvd., Suite No. 600, in November 2021, Berrena was told the firm hadn’t been there in four years.

Hudson didn’t seem to literally ghost the Bar — no database speaks of the 57-year-old’s death. The Bar says she might have left the region and one database says Hudson registered to vote in 2018 from a Denver address (a 1,362-foot, 4/2, built in 1941, according to the real estate listings).

Maybe Hudson decided the law wasn’t for her after a family court lashing from 15th Circuit Court Judge Karen Miller as Hudson handled the husband’s side in a 2016 divorce. The Bar summarized Miller’s opinion of Hudson’s work as “incompetent, vexatious and in bad faith.”

Miller’s words at the end of one hearing, as quoted in the referee’s report:

“The hearing is done. Out. Out now. I have had it, Ms. Hudson. You need to read the child support formula to determine what correct discovery you need. You are pissing your client’s money away doing these frivolous discovery matters and coming to court. You’re going to bankrupt your client based on your lack of knowledge about how to calculate child support and what discovery is relevant...”

Miller wasn’t finished with Hudson, later rejecting two motions with “[I]t is absolutely clear to the Court that the Former Husband pursued his claims in bad faith and overlitigated this case in support thereof. The orders entered during the pendency of this modification action repeatedly warned the Former Husband and his counsel about their handling of this matter. Accordingly, the Court considers this case the epitome of vexatious and unnecessary litigation at the hand of the Former Husband.”

In January 2018, the ex-wife was granted $65,014.08 in attorney’s fees, to be split equally between Hudson and her client. Hudson’s appeal of this ruling got rejected in November 2018.

“Shortly thereafter, it is believed that [Hudson] closed her practice and moved to an unknown location,” the report by referee Judge Robert Fabian Diaz said.

Nobody’s looking for Hudson anymore. She’s been disbarred.

Kenneth Pinos, Miami

In the midst of handling a civil forfeiture for a client against the Miami-Dade Police Department, Kenneth Pinos (admitted 2008) went dark. After an email from his Axcess Law address to opposing counsel on May 26, 2020, Pinos didn’t answer emails or calls. Eventually, emails bounced back. Dial Axcess Law’s number, as a Miami Herald reporter did Wednesday, and you’ll be told the number “doesn’t accept phone calls.”

Pinos’ disappearance also left unfinished work for a client who paid him $7,500 to handle an immigration matter for her daughter.

Pinos is disbarred.

Nashid Sabir, Miami

A woman hired Nashid Sabir (admitted in 1983) to file a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services I-130 petition for her husband before the end of August 2017 “to secure his permanent residence in the United States.”

Sabir told the woman he’d filed it. His guilty plea admits that he lied — he didn’t file it until Dec. 22, 2017.

When USCIS asked on May 24, 2019, for more evidence by Aug. 19, 2019, Sabir told his client he’d handle it. He claimed he mailed the necessary information on Aug. 13, 2019, but the tracking number matched no such package. USCIS denied the petition that September. Sabir advised his clients to refile the application in September, putting them out another $400 for the application fee. Sabir did this for free, although he said his first attempt at filing the petition got returned to him.

Another couple had similar problems with Sabir and demanded he refund half the $2,000 they paid him because he did half the work. Sabir did so.

Such lack of diligence and communication with clients earned Sabir a 30-day suspension, which he began serving on Dec. 3. Sabir received an admonishment in 2013 and a public reprimand in 2018.

Grant Sarbinoff, Miami

Grant Sarbinoff (admitted in 2010) didn’t move forward from a breakup in a productive manner. Sarbinoff hacked a woman’s Hulu and Instagram accounts, using Uber to spy on her and spoofed phone numbers to call her repeatedly.

READ MORE: Miami lawyer went high-tech to stalk, harass ex-girlfriend

Sarbinoff pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful use of a communications device; two counts of criminal use of personal identification information; and 16 counts of offenses against computers. Adjudication was withheld on all counts except for one count of criminal use of personal identification information. He did 90 days in jail and is on probation until Nov. 14, 2031.

The referee’s report accepting Sarbinoff’s guilty plea for consent judgment says he’s entered into a contract with Florida Lawyers Assistance, which helps lawyers deal with mental health or substance abuse issues, and has an A average in Boston University’s MBA program.

In the report, Sarbinoff blames the behavior that led to his probation on “the unforseen, adverse effects of a prescription drug prescribed by a mental health professional.”

This followed the permanent restraining order a woman got against Sarbinoff in 2015.

Sarbinoff’s Florida Bar profile says “retired.” If he ever wants to unretire, it’ll have to be after May 30, 2025. Sarbinoff is suspended until then.

Peter Spindel, Miami

Peter Spindel accepted $1,500 from Yolanda de Llorente to handle a personal bankruptcy petition in July 2019, his guilty plea said. That’s the last she heard from him until that Sept. 17, 2019, when Spindel told de Llorente he’d been in Hong Kong. She didn’t hear from him again before sending him a certified letter on Oct. 17, 2019, firing him from the job and telling him she’d be at his office for her money and her file.

Spindel wasn’t at his office on Nov. 4. She filed a Bar grievance. Spindel’s answer included an accusation of criminal tax and bankruptcy fraud and unredacted documents with de Llorente’s financial information. Another lawyer got the job done for de Llorente, who died while the Bar matter was pending.

While Spindel was leaving de Llorente in the dark, he accepted a $2,000 retainer on Sept. 4, 2019, from attorney Scott Tepper to represent a client as a creditor in a bankruptcy. Tepper told Spindel to file a notice of appearance and there was a creditor’s meeting on Sept. 18, 2019. Spindel emailed Tepper on Sept. 11 that he’d be at the creditors’ meeting and attached “a document purporting to be [Spindel’s] previously-filed notice of appearance,” dated Sept. 4.

The attachment was a fake, Spindel missed the Sept. 18, 2019, creditors’ meeting, and he didn’t file a notice of appearance until Sept. 25, 2019.

Tepper tried to fire Spindel by mail in October 2019, but the certified mail to Spindel’s post office box came back as “vacant.”

Spindel answered Tepper’s Bar grievance with a claim that most of that month he was managing his jewelry business in Asia and civil unrest in Hong Kong “sharply limited his ability to communicate abroad.”

Spindel’s 30-day suspension began Dec. 3.