On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Florida Supreme Court approved the conditional guilty plea and consent judgment for discipline against attorney Steven Edward Amster. The ruling stems from a complaint filed by The Florida Bar under case number 2019-50,255(17E), addressing Amster’s conduct in a criminal case.
Amster was disciplined for violating Rule 4-1.5(e)(1) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which requires lawyers to clearly communicate the basis or rate of fees and costs to their clients. The misconduct arose during Amster’s representation of Tomas Diaz in a criminal case. Amster, whose law office is based in Miami-Dade County, initially agreed to represent Diaz for a flat fee of $5,000, as outlined in a written retainer agreement with The Law Offices of Steven E. Amster, P.A. The agreement specified that the fee was non-refundable and that the case would be considered closed upon a verdict, dismissal, or plea.
After Diaz entered a plea, Amster continued to represent him in a related probation violation matter for an additional 18 months, attending numerous hearings in Duval County and successfully preventing Diaz’s incarceration. However, Amster requested and received additional fees from Diaz’s mother, Elda Diaz, through three separate wire transfers to his operating account. These payments were for the probation violation representation, but Amster failed to execute a new written fee agreement or clearly communicate that the additional fees would follow the same non-refundable terms as the initial agreement. This lack of written documentation and communication regarding the fee structure constituted the violation of Rule 4-1.5(e)(1).
The Florida Bar initially charged Amster with additional violations under Rules 5-1.1(a)(1) and 5-1.1(b), related to trust account management, but these charges were voluntarily dismissed as part of the consent judgment.
The referee considered Amster’s prior disciplinary history, including a public reprimand for delayed responses to Bar inquiries, and his substantial experience as an attorney. Mitigating factors included Amster’s timely efforts to make restitution, full cooperation with the Bar, and expressed remorse.
The Supreme Court approved the consent judgment imposing the following sanctions on Amster: a public reprimand published in the Southern Reporter, mandatory attendance at Ethics School within six months with a $750 fee, reimbursement of $10,000 to Elda Diaz within 30 days with proof of payment required within 60 days, and payment of $2,326 in disciplinary costs. Failure to comply with these terms will result in Amster being deemed a delinquent member of The Florida Bar, making him ineligible to practice law.
According to Avvo, Mr. Amster is a lawyer in Miami, Florida. He acquired his law license in Florida in 1994.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
