Palm Bay attorney Armando Eduardo Rosal has been publicly reprimanded following a May 25 Florida Supreme Court order over allegations he failed to diligently handle a probate matter, according to a recent Florida State Bar report.
Rosal is to be publicly reprimanded by publication in the Southern Reporter, according to a July 31 state bar report that announced the discipline and the high court's order. Rosal also must attend the state bar's ethics school and to pay the bar's costs of $3,038.68, according to the state supreme court's order.
Rosal's had been retained by a former client to file an amended petition in an estate worth less than $75,000, according to the state bar's report and Rosal's conditional guilty plea. Rosal relied solely on information provided by the former client in the filing. "The estate assets were subsequently distributed to the former client," the state bar's report said.
In Florida, court orders are not final until after time to file a rehearing motion expires
Rosal was admitted to the bar in Florida on March 9, 1992, according to his profile at the state bar website. Rosal has had no other discipline before the state bar for at least 10 years, according to his profile.
Rosal, who represented himself in the proceedings that lead to his reprimand, said he had represented the former client in other matters "and believed her to be reliable and trustworthy," according to his conditional guilty plea.
The former client told Rosal that none of the heirs had any interest in obtaining the estate's property and she provided what she said were notarized waivers from the heirs waiving interest in the property, according to Rosal's unconditional guilty plea.
After the estate assets had been distributed, one of the heirs complained to the state bar, which investigated and discovered none of the waivers had been signed by the heirs or properly notarized, that Rosal had been deceived, according to his conditional guilty plea.
It was only through the state bar's investigation that Rosal learned that, because of his former client’s deception, he had never actually communicated with the heir, according to his conditional guilty plea.