Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC2021-0011 ____________ THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. STEPHEN MATTHEW BANDER, Respondent. May 11, 2023 PER CURIAM. Respondent, Stephen Matthew Bander, seeks review of a referee’s report recommending that he be found guilty of professional misconduct and disbarred for failing to place client funds in his trust account, failing to timely provide refunds to his clients for double payment of attorney’s fees, and using the fees to pay firm operating expenses. 1 Bander challenges the referee’s findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt, arguing that his 1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. conduct did not violate any of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Bar Rules). He also asserts that if he violated the rules, disbarment is a disproportionate sanction. We disagree, and for the reasons discussed below, we approve the referee’s report in its entirety and disbar Bander from the practice of law. I. BACKGROUND Bander represented three clients—identified as clients N, A, and F—who sought U.S. residency through the Immigrant Investor Program (IIP). The three clients invested through an EB-5 Regional Center, Miami Metropolitan Regional Center, in a project called Skyrise Miami Tower Investors, LLC (Skyrise). Skyrise offered to pay the clients’ legal fees for the representation related to the visas up to $40,000 per client. Bander billed each of the clients a total of $25,000 for the representation. Half of the fee was due at the time the client signed the engagement agreement with Bander, and the second half was due after United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) made a determination on the clients’ visa applications. Bander sent the invoice for his legal services to each client at the prescribed time. He also sent an invoice for the -2- legal services to Skyrise. Both the clients and Skyrise promptly paid the invoiced fees. Between 2015 and 2017, Bander received $90,000 in payments for legal fees from Skyrise. Each of the Skyrise payments occurred after the clients had already paid the legal fees. For example, Client N was billed for the initial fee on May 22, 2015, and paid on July 8, 2015. Skyrise was billed for the same portion of the fee on October 14, 2015, and paid Bander on November 2, 2015. USCIS approved Client N’s application on November 14, 2016, and the next day, both the client and Skyrise were billed for the remainder of the fee. The client paid Bander on November 17, 2016, and Skyrise paid on November 23, 2016. However, the client was not informed of the Skyrise payments until February 27, 2017, and the refund was not sent to the client until March 14, 2017. Bander followed a substantially similar pattern with Clients A and F. Because the clients had already paid the legal fees, the Skyrise payments were reimbursements of the legal fees to be given back to the clients. Instead of placing these funds in his trust account and sending refunds for the double payments promptly to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals