TALLAHASSEE — Longtime Miami attorney David Michael Goldstein has been voluntarily disbarred following a Jan. 3 Florida Supreme Court order over allegations involving his client trust account, according to a recent announcement by the Florida Bar.
"A disciplinary charge pending against Goldstein involved allegations of trust account violations," the state bar said in its Jan. 31 announcement of the discipline and the Supreme Court's order.
The state Supreme Court issued its two-page order of disciplinary revocation, tantamount to disbarment, with leave to seek readmission after five years. The high court referred to Goldstein's agreement to cease his more than 45-year practice of law 60 days after the date of his Oct. 31 petition for disciplinary revocation, and ruled his disbarment was effective immediately.
The court also ordered Goldstein to pay almost $2,885 in costs.
Florida court orders are not final until time to file a rehearing motion expires. Filing such a motion does not alter the effective date of Goldstein's disbarment.
Attorneys disbarred in Florida generally cannot reapply for admission for five years and must pass an extensive process that includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam.
Goldstein was admitted to the bar in Florida on May 1, 1973, according to his profile at the state bar website. No prior discipline before the state bar is listed on Goldstein's state bar profile.
Goldstein's petition followed a state bar investigation the commenced last summer after the attorney was alleged to have filed to provide a client with an accounting of funds Goldstein was holding in trust on the client's behalf. In his petition, Goldstein said he had represented the client over a "significant period of time" and that his representation "involved a substantial sum of money."
A subpoena for Goldstein's records, including banking and client-related documents, was issued in July and he was granted an extension of time to comply, according to his petition. Before the extended due date, Goldstein informed the state bar that he intended to petition for disciplinary revocation and never provided a response to the subpoena.