How $20,000 attorney-client dispute led to a suspension for a Miami lawyer

Business admin September 13, 2026 0 Comments

How $20,000 attorney-client dispute led to a suspension for a Miami lawyer

Cyberhacking, COVID-19 and continuing to act as an attorney after being told to stop contributed to a Miami lawyer getting suspended by the state Supreme Court.

But, the foundation of Christine Humphrey’s 90-day suspension that began last week is $20,000 in legal fees.

While this suspension is the first major discipline action by the state Supreme Court against Humphrey since she joined the Florida Bar in 2004, this current case shares elements with two previous cases that ended with Humphrey receiving an admonishment in 2017 and a public reprimand in 2020.

The public reprimand had yet to come down on Aug. 28, 2020, when C. Humphrey & Associates accepted Julie LaLonde and Brenda Sanchez as clients.

Money for a ‘slam dunk’ that clanked out

What follows comes from Humphrey’s guilty plea and the report by case referee, Judge Andrea Wolfson.

LaLonde and Sanchez wanted to get FDA approval of their medical device, a task that’s the bailiwick of C. Humphrey & Associates.

“[Humphrey] promised LaLonde that obtaining FDA approval for their device was a ‘slam dunk,’” the guilty plea read.

Humphrey quoted her fees as a $25,000 non-refundable retainer and $47,000 for all legal services.

“The attorney/client relationship deteriorated when LaLonde and Sanchez discovered overbilling and lack of communication by [Humphrey],” the referee’s report said. “LaLonde requested a $20,000.00 refund.”

Humphrey agreed via Jan. 21, 2021 email to refund $20,000 within 30 days, but didn’t pony up the cash by the deadline. LaLonde and Sanchez filed a bar complaint on the counts of lack of communication with the client and charging illegal and/or excessive fees.

Humphrey agreed to participate in the Florida Bar’s fee arbitration program and, in June 2022, LaLonde and Sanchez were awarded $20,000 for legal fees. Humphrey was given one month to come across with the money.

“Again, [Humphrey] failed to refund the legal fees and satisfied the arbitration award within the appropriate time limit,” Wolfson’s report and Humphrey’s guilty plea said. “[Humphrey] advised that she did not have the money to pay the arbitration award.”

Though this caused Humphrey to be classified as a delinquent member of the bar and “ineligible to practice law, [Humphrey] continued to maintain an active social media and law firm website, seeking to provide legal services to clients in Florida.”

Also, Humphrey dodged LaLonde and Sanchez’s “numerous attempts” to get in touch with her about their money before finally telling them she couldn’t pay. The former clients reopened their bar complaint in August 2022. Humphrey finally paid the $20,000 on Aug. 20, 2024 and got off the delinquency list.

Under mitigating factors, Humphrey’s guilty plea claimed “significant financial difficulties since the beginning of 2020 after a year of cyber hacking, which impacted [Humphrey’s] ability to honor her ability to pay complainant even prior to any arbitration;” and dealing with “a prolonged illness with COVID-19 in December 2020, hurting her ability to run her business properly.”

The public reprimand of Humphrey

Three grievances against Humphrey were involved in the 2020 public reprimand. Humphrey’s guilty plea to all three grievances admitted to violating rules for fees and costs for legal services and two of them involved lack of communication.

Humphrey charged Edurdo Tawil a $7,500 non-refundable retainer to review 75 food product packaging labels. A week after the client sent the first six labels, Humphrey had sent one review. Tawil asked for his labels or a refund from Humphrey.

“Ms. Humphrey requested time to produce the packaging labels due to server issues involving her law practice,” her guilty plea said.

In addition to the public reprimand, Humphrey had to refund $5,000 to Tawil.

After another client, Anthony Ginter, paid a $5,000 retainer for research, Humphrey was supposed to tell Ginter when 75% of that retainer had been used. She didn’t, but billed Ginter for the time.

“However, [Humphrey] absorbed the bill and the client did not remit additional fees,” her guilty plea read. “During this time, [Humphrey’s] webpage contained misleading or potentially misleading information, which has been rectified.”

Humphrey’s guilty plea said Sioban Ellison paid her $5,000 via credit card, but Humphrey “missed several scheduled initial consults” with Ellison. After meeting with her, Humphrey ended the representation and promised a refund the following day. A month later, Ellison received no refund, no communication and filed a credit card dispute to get her $5,000 back.

The admonishment of Humphrey

The 11th Circuit’s Grievance Committee’s report of minor misconduct Oct. 26, 2017 scolds Humphrey for her actions and inaction in a case involving imported products. Just as Humphrey claimed cyber hacking caused problems with the current case, she pointed to computer problems hampering her ability to defend herself in this case.

The FDA had detained food imported by Munir Alshujaeih for either improper labeling or just not being allowed into the country. Alshujaeih hired Humphrey to deal with the situation.

“The client has maintained that he provided all requested documentation to you and that you assured him that all products would be released,” the report said.

The report said Humphrey said she sent a 50-page memo to the FDA on the deadline date, but the FDA says it never received that report. And, Humphrey didn’t have anything showing the report was delivered or signed copy of the memo. Alshujaeih lost most of the food “and those that could be retrieved ended up being sold for a loss.”

Humphrey said she was going through a tough personal time and Alshujaeih’s expectations were unrealistic. The Grievance Committee report said managing client expectations falls on her and there’s no written proof she did that or “regularly communicated with your client.”

Also, the report upbraided her for waiting on a time sensitive issue involving food until the deadline day to send the memo, the memo the FDA says it never received.

“Your defense has been that you experienced multiple instances of server and computer issues that prevented you from being able to provide proof of your communications and work,” said the report, which later swatted that aside with “…your reliance upon claimed technical problems in your office is not excusable. For instance, with knowledge that your systems were compromised and perhaps not reliable, you still insisted on relying upon these same faulty systems.”