Category Archives: Attorney misrepresentation

Pennsylvania lawyer receives 2 year stayed suspension for neglecting cases and paying sanctions with firm funds without telling firm or client

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion which imposed an agreed 2 year stayed suspension with probation for a lawyer who neglected client cases over two years, had monetary sanctions imposed on him and paid the sanctions out of firm operating funds without telling his partner or the client, and deceiving client by claiming that his billings were for legal services and not sanctions. The disciplinary opinion is Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Christopher Roulhac Booth, Jr., No. 106 DB 2013 (Pa. SC 11/13/14) and the opinion and disciplinary board report are online here: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/106DB2013-Booth.pdf

According to the opinion and consent agreement, the lawyer neglected cases for over 2 years, had $65,000.00 in monetary sanctions imposed on him and paid the sanctions out of firm accounts without telling his partner or the client. The lawyer had concealed his conduct from his partner and the client, Wachovia Bank. After Wachovia learned of the defaults and sanctions they terminated the firm and hired other counsel.

The lawyer also took additional funds from the law firm’s operating account. According to the consent agreement “(d)uring his tenure with (the law firm), Respondent dispersed, or caused to be dispersed, monies from the firm’s operating account in an amount in excess of $117,000, which disbursements he concealed from the firm and which were in excess of the fees and profits of the partnership to which he would have been entitled under the partnership agreement. Respondent has repaid the firm the amount of $40,000 and has arranged for the repayment of the remainder of the funds by relinquishing fees that were due to Respondent.”

The consent agreement states: “the instant matter does not involve the misappropriation of client funds; rather it involves the ‘misdirection’ of operating funds and subsequent misrepresentation to Respondent’s partner of the true purpose of the use of the operating funds, which was to satisfy sanctions orders resulting from Respondent’s neglect. Furthermore, Respondent attempted to deceive the client, Wachovia, into believing that Respondent’s billings were for services rendered rather than for services and sanctions.”

The consent agreement stated as mitigation that the lawyer had self-reported the misconduct and suffers from depression and in aggravation, that the lawyer had served as a member of a Pennsylvania disciplinary hearing committee.

Bottom line: This lawyer was found to have neglected cases over 2 years, had monetary sanctions imposed upon him and paid the $65,000.00 in sanctions out of his law firm’s operating account without telling his partner or the client and making false statements to the client, and improperly taking an additional $117,000.00 from the firm’s operating account. In other states, including Florida, this lawyer may or would have received a much more severe sanction, including potentially disbarment.

Disclaimer: this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire
Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
jcorsmeier@jac-law.com
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer lack of diligence, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer misrepresentations to law firm re billings, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

New Jersey Supreme Court suspends lawyer for one year as reciprocal discipline for New York litigation misconduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent New Jersey Supreme Court order/opinion which imposed a one year reciprocal suspension on a lawyer as reciprocal discipline for misconduct in a New York litigation matter. The disciplinary opinion is In the Matter of Gregory N. Filosa, Case No. 14-146 (NJ SC 11/6/14) and is online here: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/drb/decisions/Filosa_14_108.pdf

According to the opinion and disciplinary report, the misconduct involved the lawyer’s handling of an employment discrimination matter against the client’s former employer. The lawyer was an associate at his law firm and was supervised by firm partners. The employer requested information about the client’s efforts to mitigate damages through, inter alia, new employment.

The firm retained an economist as an expert to assess damages. The economist prepared an analysis based on the assumption that the client would be unemployed through the end of 2010. Before service of the expert report, the client accepted a job with Kraft that paid her more than she made at the former employer. She advised the associate about her employment, who told his supervisor. The law firm then sent the inaccurate expert report to opposing counsel and demanded a $350,000.00 settlement. The client was later deposed and lied about accepting the job at Kraft. The lawyer was aware that the testimony was false but did not correct it either at the deposition or later.

During the pendency of the case, the former employer learned about the client’s new position at Kraft and moved for sanctions and the dismissal of the case. The supervising attorney and another partner from the law firm were present at the May 2011 oral argument on the motion; however, the lawyer was not present.

After the hearing, the trial judge imposed a $2,500.00 sanction against the client and a $15,000.00 sanction against the law firm due to the “false testimony by (the client) at her deposition” as well as the lawyer (and his supervisor’s) efforts “to conceal (the client’s) new employment and to leverage a false expert report in order to extract a favorable settlement.” The judge did not to dismiss the case against (the employer) at the time. The lawyer resigned from the law firm on May 31, 2011.

The New York disciplinary board found that the lawyer had engaged in misconduct by “misleading (the former employer) about (client)’s employment prospects through the inaccurate expert report; by failing to correct (the client)’s deposition testimony; by failing to produce documents that would have revealed (the client)’s two job offers; and by trying to settle the case quickly ‘before the defendants caught on to the truth’”. He received a one (1) year suspension in New York in 2013. The New Jersey Supreme Court then imposed a one (1) year suspension nunc pro tunc as reciprocal discipline.

Bottom line: This lawyer was found to have concealed a client’s new employment, leveraged a false expert report in order to extract a favorable settlement, allowed the client to lie during a deposition, and failed to correct the client’s false testimony. Some other states might have imposed a longer suspension or disbarred the lawyer.

Let’s be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire
Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
jcorsmeier@jac-law.com
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Illinois Disciplinary Review Board recommends 5 month suspension for lawyer who failed to correct false client affidavit and made false statements to court

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Illinois disciplinary Review Board report which recommended a 5 month suspension for a lawyer who was found to have failed to correct his client’s false affidavit claiming sole heirship in an estate matter and made false statements to the court. The opinion is In re: John F. Argoudelis, No. 6200842, Commission No. 2012PR00160 (October 2, 2014) and is online here: http://www.iardc.org/HB_RB_Disp_Html.asp?id=11497

According to the opinion, the lawyer agreed to represent a client regarding the administration of the client’s brother’s estate after the brother died in 2008. The client was angry that a great-niece who had cared for the brother during his lifetime was named as a joint tenant on one of the brother’s bank accounts and received about $400,000.00. The client told the lawyer that he was his brother’s only heir and, based on the information he received from the client, the lawyer drafted and filed an “affidavit of heirship” and letters of administration stating that the client was the only surviving heir. The probate court then appointed the client as administrator of the estate. In early 2009, the lawyer learned that the client had lied to him and that the brother had additional heirs; however, he took no steps over the next seventeen months to correct the false affidavit or file an amended affidavit.

At a hearing before the Illinois Hearing Board, the lawyer stated he failed to amend the affidavit because he forgot about it and he said that he also forgot about the existence of other heirs. He further testified that he was more focused on the issue as to whether the client could obtain the money received by the great-niece.

The Hearing Board found that the lawyer’s testimony was not credible since the lawyer had discussed the existence of additional heirs with various individuals; had conducted research regarding distribution law; and had formulated a potential argument to limit the share of the other heirs. The Hearing Board found that the lawyer knowingly failed to correct the false statement in the affidavit and the lawyer did not challenge that finding.

After the client’s appointment as administrator of the estate, the lawyer also used the false information regarding the heirship to obtain information from financial institutions in an attempt to support the client’s claims against the great-niece. The lawyer also sold the brother’s home in 2009 without notifying the other heirs. The lawyer’s mother-in-law was the listing real estate agent and the lawyer was the title agent in that sale. The lawyer received over $9,000.00 in attorney’s fees from the sale, most of which was for fees that the client owed him to pursue the claim against the great-niece.

In aggravation, the Hearing Board found that the lawyer’s conduct caused harm and “jeopardized the interests of the other heirs. His actions prevented the heirs from taking any action with respect to the sale of (the brother’s) house. He took $9,000 in fees from the sales proceeds that arguably should not have been an expense borne by the other heirs. His conduct also harmed his own client who was sanctioned for engaging in deceit.”

“As noted by the Hearing Board, it is unlikely that (the client) would have been sanctioned and ordered to pay $9,000 had (the lawyer) acted appropriately and amended the affidavit of heirship as soon as he learned it was false. Finally, we agree with the Hearing Board that the judicial system was harmed due to (the lawyer’s) conduct. (The lawyer’s) conduct forced the other heirs to take action in court, at additional expense to the heirs and inconvenience to the court, in order to correct (the lawyer’s) wrongdoings.”

“(The lawyer’s) misconduct was serious. When he learned his client had lied to him and that he had included those lies in material statements he made to the court, (the lawyer) had an obligation to stand up to his client and to persuade his client to remedy the false statements. (The lawyer) did not do so, and his repeated failure to do so over such an extended period of time warrants a sanction greater then a censure or a very brief suspension.”

“While no two disciplinary cases are exactly alike, we view this case as more comparable to In re Vitell, 00 CH 95 (Review Bd., Dec. 31, 2003), petition for leave to file exceptions denied, No. M.R. 19303 (May 17, 2004), where the Court imposed a five month suspension upon an attorney who negotiated approximately eighty-eight disability checks after the death of a client so the client’s widow could continue to receive the disability payments. It is a case where a lawyer aids a client without taking into account his professional obligations to act with integrity. Accordingly, we conclude that a five month suspension adequately addresses the seriousness of (the lawyer’s) misconduct, complies with the purposes of discipline, and is consistent with other sanctions.” The Disciplinary Review Board’s findings will now be reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Bottom line: In addition to failing to correct the materially false affidavit that had been filed with the court, this lawyer was found to have made materially false statements to the court, which harmed the client and were prejudicial to the administration of justice. These allegations would appear to be serious enough to warrant more than a 5 month suspension; however, regardless of the outcome, this case clearly illustrate a lawyer’s serious responsibility to correct false statements and documents which have been submitted to the court as soon as practicable after learning of their falsity.

Let’s be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this e-mail does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire
Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
jcorsmeier@jac-law.com
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false testimony, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

New Jersey lawyer receives three month suspension for “sarcastic and sophomoric” e-mails and statements to opposing counsel and false statements to judge

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent New Jersey Supreme Court opinion which suspended a lawyer for 3 months for making outrageous sarcastic and sophomoric statements and e-mails to opposing counsel and making false statements to a judge. The disciplinary opinion is: In the Matter of Jared E. Stolz, Docket No. DRB 13-331 (September 4, 2014) and the opinion is here: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/drb/decisions/Stolz_13_331.pdf

According to the opinion, the lawyer admitted making the inappropriate comments in e-mails and a fax, but claimed that his misstatements to the judge were due to his busy schedule which included vacations to the Dominican Republic and Ireland, where he played golf with his father. The Bar Complaint referred to and quoted e-mails and a facsimile that the lawyer sent to opposing counsel in 2009 and 2010 as follows:

“Don’t feel you have to email me daily and let me know just how smart you are.”

“Did you get beat up in school a lot? Because you whine like a little girl.”

“Why don’t you grow a pair?”

“This will acknowledge receipt of your numerous Emails, faxes and letters…. In response thereto, Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla.”

The Bar Complaint also alleged that, after a motion hearing December 2010, the lawyer and opposing counsel had physical contact. Opposing counsel told the lawyer not to touch him and the lawyer replied: “Why would I want to touch a fag like you?”

At a hearing on the disciplinary matter, the lawyer apologized for the statements and e-mails to opposing counsel. “It was not considerate…I have no explanation. I should be disciplined for it.” He called the statements “inexcusable, undignified and “venomous”; however, he denied that he lied to a judge when he said he never received certifications supporting a requested court order. He acknowledged at the hearing that he had received the certifications but said he had not seen them at the time that he made the misstatement because he was frequently out of the office during the period in question and he had to respond to 10 to 15 motions in one day.

According to the lawyer’s testimony:

“I neglected my files, I played too much golf, I went to Punta Cana with my family all within two months. Was it wrong? I don’t know. This is the lifestyle that I’ve chosen, the practice I’ve chosen because I worked at Methfessel & Werbel for 15 years in a cubical [sic] rising to managing director. I didn’t want that anymore. I want to play golf. I do insurance work. I missed it. I screwed up. I had no motivation to lie to the judge about this particular thing.”

“Should I have done things differently? Absolutely. Did I learn a lesson about this? Absolutely. After this, and I got that I now have hired two other attorneys, they review things, I review everything that comes in. Am I going to get lazy again and play more golf? I hope so. But I certainly did not intentionally lie.”

The NJ District Ethics Committee reviewed the matter and found that the lawyer did not make any intentional misrepresentations but that he may have been sloppy and recommended an admonition. The Review Board recommended a three-month suspension. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with the Review Board and suspended the lawyer for three months.

According to the opinion: “The sarcastic and sophomoric comments made in the emails and fax set forth in count one demonstrated a failure to treat (opposing counsel) with ‘courtesy and consideration.’” “The wildly inappropriate – indeed, discriminatory – comments (calling opposing counsel a ‘fag’) … also demonstrated a lack of courtesy and consideration.” “Although it may be true, as the DEC observed, that respondent had no reason to lie about the non-receipt of the certifications, his actions were so contrary to what a reasonable attorney would have done, if confronted with the same situation, that his story cannot be believed.”

Bottom line: Lawyers beware: If you are going to “get lazy and play golf”, try to avoid being negligent, making “misstatements” to a judge, making excuses, and making “sophomoric and sarcastic” statements to opposing counsel, especially if you have been practicing for almost 24 years.

Let’s be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this Ethics Alert is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire
Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
jcorsmeier@jac-law.com
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false testimony, Lawyer lack of diligence, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

South Carolina Supreme Court prohibits another Florida lawyer from practicing law who solicited over the internet, made misrepresentations, and represented clients

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court which prohibited another Florida lawyer who was not admitted in that state from admission to practice for soliciting over the internet and representing clients, making false statements, and failing to respond to the allegations, this time permanently. The opinion is: In the Matter of Alma C. Defillo, SC Case No. 27431 (August 13, 2014) and is at: http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27431.pdf.

According to the opinion, formal disciplinary charges were filed against the lawyer, who was licensed to practice in Florida but not in South Carolina. The first count alleged that the lawyer opened an office in Greenville, South Carolina in 2012, “ostensibly to handle federal immigration matters. Respondent had no law partners or associates who were licensed in South Carolina except for a period of approximately fourteen days in August 2012. Respondent offered to provide legal services in South Carolina using methods specifically targeted at potential clients in South Carolina, including a law firm website, business cards, print advertisements, and radio commercials…”

“In connection with her representation of two clients in federal immigration matters, respondent sent letters to judges for the state circuit court in Greenville, requesting certification that the clients were crime victims. The letterhead contained the phrase “Attorneys and Counselors at Law” when, in fact, respondent had no partners or associates at the times the letters were written. Respondent’s letterhead included her Greenville office address without indicating the jurisdictional limitations on her ability to practice law.”

“Respondent advertised her law firm through the use of a website available to residents of South Carolina. Included on the website are references to respondent’s Greenville office. Respondent’s website contains material misrepresentations and omits facts necessary to make the contents considered as a whole not materially misleading. On her website, respondent advertises her office in Greenville but fails to state that she is not licensed to practice law in South Carolina or to otherwise set forth the jurisdictional limitations on her practice in this state. Further, respondent’s website is not limited to the promotion of her federal immigration practice as she advertises her experience in both criminal and family law and offers to ‘analyze the facts of [her prospective client’s] case by applying current…State Laws.’ In addition to false and misleading statements regarding offers to practice in this jurisdiction, respondent repeatedly refers to the firm’s “lawyers” and “attorneys” when, in fact, respondent is a sole practitioner with no partners, only sporadically employing associates in her law firm.

“Respondent’s website compares her services with other lawyers’ services in a way that cannot be factually substantiated by stating her law firm is ‘unique’ because she and her staff are fluent in Spanish and English. Additionally, respondent includes forms of the words ‘specialist’ and ‘expert’ on her website even though she is not a specialist certified by this Court. Respondent promotes her law firm by distributing printed business cards. The business cards advertise her office in Greenville without disclosing the fact that respondent is not licensed to practice law in South Carolina or disclosing the geographical limitation of her law practice in this state.

“Respondent promotes her law firm by publication of print advertisements in Spanish-language magazines and other periodicals distributed in South Carolina. Respondent’s print media advertisements lists her office in Greenville without disclosing the fact that she is not licensed to practice law in South Carolina or disclosing the jurisdictional limitations on her practice in this state. Respondent promotes her law firm by broadcasting commercials on Spanish-language radio stations in South Carolina. Respondent’s radio commercials include reference to her office in Greenville without disclosing the fact that she is not licensed in South Carolina or disclosing the geographical limitations of her practice.”

The second count stated: “Respondent initially cooperated with the disciplinary investigation by timely submitting her responses to the notice of investigation and ODC’s subpoena for her client files and record of advertising dissemination. However, respondent failed to submit a response to the supplemental notice of investigation served on her on April 5, 2013. As a result of her failure to submit a response to the supplemental notice of investigation, ODC issued a notice for respondent to appear for an interview on May 23, 2013. Respondent contacted ODC and requested the interview be postponed.

“Pursuant to that request, ODC issued an amended notice to appear, setting the interview for May 31, 2013. Respondent failed to appear, although her husband called ODC thirty-two minutes before the scheduled interview time to state respondent would not be attending the interview due to a court appearance in Georgia. Respondent’s husband was asked to instruct respondent to contact ODC after her court appearance in Georgia to reschedule the interview. As a result of respondent’s failure to contact ODC pursuant to this instruction, ODC issued a third notice to appear, setting the interview for July 2, 2013. Respondent did not appear on July 2, 2013, and has not contacted ODC with regard to this disciplinary matter since that time.

“Respondent made the following false or misleading statements in her response to the initial notice of investigation that she submitted to ODC: My practice is limited to Immigration Law. I have [not] portrayed myself to practice any other law but federal immigration law. At no time I have portrayed myself to represent residence [sic] of South Carolina with any legal services other than those that are exclusively related to immigration law. I solely practice federal immigration law.”

The SC disciplinary hearing panel found that the lawyer was subject to discipline pursuant to SC Bar Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct or other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of lawyers) and Rule 7(a)(3) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to willfully violate valid order of Commission or hearing panel, willfully fail to appear personally as directed, or knowingly fail to respond to lawful demand from disciplinary authority to include request for response or appearance) and that she violated SC disciplinary rules related to advertising, false statements and other rules.

The opinion stated that South Carolina has jurisdiction over all allegations that a “lawyer” has committed misconduct and that the term “lawyer” includes “a lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction if the lawyer …offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction [and] anyone whose advertisement or solicitations are subject to Rule 418, SCACR Rule 2(q).” The opinion also states that the “authority to discipline lawyers and the manner in which the discipline is imposed is a matter within the Court’s discretion. In the Matter of Berger, 2014 WL 1386688 (2014); In the Matter of Van Son, 403 S.C. 170, 742 S.E.2d 660 (2013). The misconduct in this matter is similar to that in In the Matter of Van Son, id., where a lawyer who was not admitted in this state sent solicitation letters to at least two South Carolina residents and, thereafter, failed to cooperate with ODC’s investigation. In addition to other sanctions, the Court barred the lawyer from admission in this state and from advertising or soliciting clients in South Carolina for a period of five years.”

“In the current matter, not only did respondent target residents of South Carolina through various forms of advertising including radio communications and print media, but she also held herself out as licensed to practice law in this state, welcomed clients with criminal and family law concerns, and sent letters on behalf of clients addressed to state court judges. Further, when she did participate in the disciplinary investigation, respondent made false statements of material fact concerning the extent of her practice and the extent of her advertising in South Carolina to ODC. Since then, respondent has failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation and to appear for the hearing. (citation omitted.

“We find it appropriate to permanently debar respondent from seeking any form of admission to practice law in this state (including pro hac vice admission) without first obtaining an order from this Court allowing her to seek admission. Further, we prohibit respondent from advertising or soliciting business in South Carolina without first obtaining an order from this Court allowing her to advertise or solicit business in this state. Before seeking an order from this Court to either allow her to seek admission or to advertise or solicit, respondent shall complete the South Carolina Bar’s Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Advertising School. Respondent shall pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.”

Bottom line: For the second time this year (the first was Berger in April, which I blogged about here: http://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/south-carolina-supreme-court-bans-florida-lawyer-from-practicing-law-who-solicited-over-the-internet-and-represented-clients-in-that-state/, the South Carolina Supreme Court has “debarred” a Florida lawyer from practicing law in that state for targeting SC residents on the internet and other forms of advertising, false advertising, and false statements in the disciplinary investigation and violating SC Bar rules, this time permanently.

Let’s be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this Ethics Alert is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire
Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
jcorsmeier@jac-law.com
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, lawyer discipline for failure to respond to complaint, Lawyer disciplined in state where not admitted, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false statements in response to Bar complaint, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer websites