SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 12 ATTORNEYS

SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 12 ATTORNEYS

Summaries of orders issued from July 27, 2026, to August 28, 2026

The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announces that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 12 attorneys, disbarring three, suspending seven, and reprimanding two.

The Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar, and its Division of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the more than 115,000 members of The Florida Bar. Key discipline case files that are public record are posted to attorneys’ individual online Florida Bar profiles. To view discipline documents, follow these steps. Information on the discipline system and how to file a complaint are available at www.floridabar.org/attorneydiscipline.

Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Attorneys suspended for periods of 91 days and longer must undergo a rigorous process to regain their law licenses including proving rehabilitation. Disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment.

Grant A. Baros, Jr., 2500 N. Military Trl., Suite 303, Boca Raton, suspended until further order of the court effective 30 days following an August 6 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2008) Following an order to show cause, Baros was held in contempt and suspended until he fully responds in writing to official Bar inquiries and until further order of the court. Baros also failed to file a response to the order to show cause. (Case No. SC2026-0727)

George Crosby Gaskell, III, 9600 Escarpment Blvd., Suite 745-102, Austin, TX, suspended for three years effective immediately following an August 12 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2007) Gaskell is held in contempt and suspended for three years for failing to submit an affidavit pursuant to Rule 3-5.1(h) certifying that he had notified all clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension. The three-year suspension is effective immediately as Gaskell was previously suspended. (Case No. SC2026-0601)

William G. Hicks, 4700 Millenia Blvd., Suite 175, Orlando, public reprimand, published in Southern Reporter, attendance at Ethics School, and completion of a continuing legal education course, effective immediately following an August 20 court order. (Admitted to Practice in New York: 2009) Hicks was admitted to practice in New York in 2009. He practices federal immigration law in Florida. Hicks failed to respond to multiple Bar inquiries until after the Bar filed its complaint with the court. Hicks eventually explained that he had been ill during most of 2025 and required surgery. He acknowledged that he did not sufficiently communicate and explain the nature and extent of his illness to the Bar. (Case No. SC2025-1530)

Christine Marie Humphrey, 601 Brickell Key Dr., Suite 700, Miami, suspended for 90 days effective 30 days following an August 6 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2004) Humphrey charged her client a $25,000 non-refundable retainer to process an FDA application to get approval for the company’s medical device. Humphrey did not take significant action in the matter and failed to properly communicate with her client. Humphrey agreed to attend The Florida Bar’s Fee Arbitration Program where her client was awarded $20,000. Humphrey failed to pay as required and was deemed a delinquent member of the Bar ineligible to engage in the practice of law. Despite her delinquency, Humphrey continued to hold herself out as a practicing attorney on the internet and social media. After the Bar complaint was reopened for her failure to pay the arbitration award, she paid the arbitration award and was deemed eligible to return to the practice of law. (Case No. SC2025-1044)

Jeffrey Rice Hussey, 853 Victoria Ter., Altamonte Springs, suspended for 91 days effective immediately following an August 25 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 1990) Hussey was held in contempt for failing to submit a sworn affidavit pursuant to Rule 3-5.1(b) attesting to notifying clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension. The 91-day suspension is effective immediately as Hussey was previously suspended. (Case No. SC2026-0629)

Gabe Kaimowitz, P.O. Box 140119, Gainesville, permanent disbarment effective immediately following an August 12 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 1987) Kaimowitz was disbarred in 2016 and could not thereafter represent clients or entities. The Bar filed a two-count petition for contempt and order to show cause. In one case, Kaimowitz attempted to file a statement of claim on behalf of a corporation. In the second case, Kaimowitz filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Order Respondent(s) to Grant Access to the First District Court of Appeal using “esq” and attorney credentials. Kaimowitz subsequently failed to respond to the order to show cause. (Case No. SC2026-0891)

Divya Khullar, P.O. Box 5021, Lighthouse Point, disbarred effective immediately following a July 27 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2012) By order dated May 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida suspended Khullar for a period of two years. The Florida Bar filed its Petition for Order to Show Cause based upon Khullar’s failure to comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) and his failure to remove all indicia of his attorney status. Khullar finally complied with Rule 3-5.1(h) in April 2026; however, Khullar failed to remove all indicia of his attorney status. Based upon Khullar’s continued failure to comply, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered his disbarment. (Case No. SC2026-0517)

Hee Bum Michael Kim, Guiljutaek 3, Suite 302, 22 Samhaksa-Ro 1-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, suspended for one year from the practice of law effective immediately following an August 3 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2014) Kim was held in contempt for failing to submit a sworn affidavit pursuant to Rule 3-5.1(h) attesting to notifying clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension. The suspension is effective immediately as Kim was previously suspended. (Case No. SC2026-0626)

Vincent Richard Milione, II, 238 NE 1st Ave., Suite A, Delray Beach, interim felony suspension effective 30 days following an August 17 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2024) Milione was arrested on January 17, 2026, for Battery by Strangulation — Domestic Violence. On February 18, 2026, Milione was charged by information with Domestic Battery by Strangulation and Felony Battery — Great Bodily Harm, Permanent Disability or Permanent Disfigurement. The charges are currently pending. (Case No. SC2026-0377)

Larry Edward Powers, III, 2126 Woodbridge Rd., Longwood, disbarred effective immediately following an August 6 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2018) Powers engaged in dishonest conduct by assisting his father (a lawyer whose license was revoked) in an attempt to gain unauthorized access to visit a family member in jail. In addition, Powers failed to respond to The Florida Bar’s inquiries concerning this matter and failed to appear for his scheduled disciplinary hearing. (Case No. SC2026-0163)

Steven Klaus Teuber, P.O. Box 66246, St. Pete Beach, suspended effective 30 days following a July 27 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2005) On June 29, 2026, Teuber was convicted of Aggravated Stalking, a third-degree felony, and Installation of Tracking Devices or Tracking Applications, a third-degree felony. Teuber was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years of probation. (Case No. SC2026-1123)

Howard L. Wernow, 4940 Munson St. NW, Suite 1100, Canton, OH, public reprimand effective immediately following an August 13 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 2013) Wernow represented a client in a patent infringement case. Wernow failed to communicate with the client prior to accepting representation. Instead, Wernow communicated with a third party and also failed to explain the possible risks associated with the patent matter prior to the litigation. (Case No. SC2026-0488)

###

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.