U.S. Third Circuit appeals court rejects New Jersey’s prohibition of lawyer’s website posts of excerpts of judicial opinions praising his legal work

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion which reversed a federal district court opinion upholding a New Jersey guideline prohibiting a lawyer from posting judicial opinion excerpts praising his legal work. The opinion is Andrew Dwyer et al v. Cynthia A. Cappell et al, No. 13-3235 (U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeal August 11, 2014) and the opinion is here: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/133235p.pdf
According to the opinion, the lawyer had posted multiple excerpts of unpublished and public judicial opinions related to fee applications in employment discrimination cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination on his law firm website. One quote stated: ““The inescapable conclusion is . . . that plaintiffs achieved a spectacular result when the file was in the hands of Mr. Dwyer. . . . Mr. Dwyer was a fierce, if sometimes not disinterested advocate for his clients, and through an offensive and defensive motion practice and through other discovery methods molded the case to the point where it could be successfully resolved.”

A judge whose opinion quotes were posted on the lawyer’s website wrote to the lawyer in April 2008 and asked that the quotes be removed because he did not want his comments to be misconstrued as a blanket endorsement of the lawyer. The lawyer refused to remove any quotes and the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Committee on Attorney Advertising began examining the issue. The Committee and the New Jersey Bar Association ultimately produced Guideline 3, which was approved by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2012. Guideline 3 stated that an attorney “may not include, on a website or other advertisement, a quotation or excerpt from a court decision (oral or written) about the attorney’s abilities or legal services.” The guideline did permit a lawyer to post the entire text of a judicial opinion on the website or in an advertisement.

The U.S. District Court upheld Guideline 3 in June 2013; however, before the Guideline was to become effective, the lawyer filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that Guideline 3 violated his First Amendment rights to engage in truthful commercial speech. The district court found against the lawyer and found that the Guideline was a mere disclosure requirement and not a direct restriction on the lawyer’s speech. In making its ruling, the district court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (1985), which stated that “an advertiser’s rights are adequately protected as long as disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the state’s interest in preventing deception of consumers.”

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the district court’s opinion. The opinion confirmed that disclosure requirements receive less scrutiny than actual restrictions on speech and that the New Jersey Guideline had characteristics of both a disclosure requirement and a restriction on speech. The opinion did not address whether the Guideline was a restriction or a prohibition; however, it stated that even under the less restrictive standard of review for disclosure requirements, the Guideline was constitutionally flawed.

The appellate opinion stated that “Guideline 3 does not require disclosing anything that could reasonably remedy conceivable consumer deception stemming from (the lawyer’s) advertisement.” The opinion also listed an example of a disclosure that would be sufficient: “This is an excerpt of a judicial opinion from a specific legal dispute. It is not an endorsement of my abilities.” Since Guideline 3 required a lawyer to post entire judicial opinions, it “effectively precludes advertising with accurate excerpts from judicial opinions on (the lawyer’s) website, it is unduly burdensome.”

“Guideline 3 as applied to (the lawyer’s) accurate quotes from judicial opinions thus violates his First Amendment right to advertise his commercial services. Requiring (the lawyer) to reprint in full on his firm’s website the opinions noted above is not reasonably related to preventing consumer deception. To the extent the excerpts of these opinions could possibly mislead the public, that potential deception is not clarified by Guideline 3. In any event, what is required by the Guideline overly burdens (the lawyer’s) right to advertise. We thus reverse the order of the District Court and remand the case.

Bottom line: This is a significant First Amendment decision related to lawyer advertising which found that New Jersey Guideline 3, which prohibited a lawyer from publishing excerpts of judicial opinions on his website, was an unconstitutional restriction on the lawyer’s commercial speech. The opinion did approve of the use of a disclosure/disclaimer to prevent any consumer confusion related to the opinion excerpts.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship 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 Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising judicial opinion excerpts on website, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

Illinois Disciplinary Board upholds lawyer’s 6 month suspension for, inter alia, keeping fees and “indefensibly outrageous” statements

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Illinois Disciplinary Review Board report which recommended a 6 month suspension (with no automatic reinstatement) of a lawyer who failed to perform legal services for which he was retained, failed to return unearned fees, failed to communicate with clients and failed to reduce fee agreements to writing, and making “indefensibly outrageous” statements about lawyers and a court deputy in litigation cases.  The case is In the Matter of: David Alan Novoselsky, Commission No. 2011PR00043, SC No. 2069881 (April 10, 2015).  The link to the Board recommendation is here: http://www.iardc.org/HB_RB_Disp_Html.asp?id=11701

The Review Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission upheld a Hearing Board’s findings that the lawyer failed to perform legal services for which he was retained, failed to return unearned fees, failed to communicate with clients, and failed to reduce fee agreements to writing.  According to the Board’s report, the lawyer also called a female lawyer derogatory names, including “b—-,’ ‘‘asshole,” “slut,” “c—,” “pervert,” “whore” and “child molester”.  He called another lawyer an “idiot” and a “cokehead,” and he also called a deputy a “dumbbell” after she asked him to lower his voice.

“(The lawyer) denied making some of the statements and could not remember if he had made other statements. However, he admitted making several of the statements.  He often claimed he was provoked by undocumented personal attacks against him or claimed that the parties were “ribbing” each other, although witnesses confirmed (a witness’s) testimony that she did not provoke, react, or respond to these statements.”  “His attacks on opposing counsel and a court deputy displayed an utter disregard for the integrity of the courts…(w)hile he may still believe that he was provoked, the record indicates otherwise.  We find his conduct to be indefensibly outrageous.”

“Because we find (the lawyer’s) actions to be egregious and because respondent lacks any remorse or understanding of his misconduct, we recommend to the court that he be suspended for six months and until further order of the court.”  The hearing board had recommended a six-month suspension with automatic reinstatement.  The review board also recommended that the lawyer be ordered to return $30,000 in restitution of unearned fees.

The Board noted in mitigation that the lawyer had practiced law for 40 years without being disciplined, he had performed pro bono work, and had been active in bar associations.  There was no mention of any other mitigation, such as substance abuse or other personal issues.

Bottom line:  This case involved an Illinois lawyer who apparently went off the deep end and made outrageous derogatory statements in highly contested litigation cases.  He also apparently kept unearned fees, failed to perform legal services, failed to obtain written fee agreements, and failed to communicate with clients.  The Illinois Supreme Court will review the recommendation and it will be interesting to see if the Court agrees or increases the recommended sanction.  Stay tuned…

Be careful out there (and of course don’t do this).

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship 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

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer improper fees, Lawyer lack of communication with client, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer unreasonable fee

Indiana assistant public defender suspended for one year for texting prostitute to a cell telephone in police custody and soliciting prostitution

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Indiana Supreme Court opinion suspending an assistant public defender for one year for, inter alia, sending a text to a person who he believed was a prostitute to a cell telephone in police cust

ody and soliciting that person for prostitution, and then meeting an undercover police officer at a hotel to solicit sex from her.  The opinion is In the Matter of: Christopher A. Hollander, No. 49S00-1402-DI-118 (Ind. SC March 24, 2015) and the link to the disciplinary opinion is here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03241501per.pdf

According to the opinion, “H.S., using a fictitious name, had placed an online classified advertisement for escort services that listed her cell phone number.  At some point, H.S. was arrested by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) for engaging in prostitution.  Respondent had seen and remembered H.S.’s classified advertisement, and when Respondent came across a police report containing the same phone number, he was able to determine specific arrest information regarding H.S. and thereafter identify her.”

The lawyer, who was an assistant public defender, texted that telephone number in November 2012 believing that the text was going to H.S.; however, the telephone was actually in the possession of the Indianapolis police and an officer impersonating the woman responded to the text.  The lawyer told the officer impersonating H.S. that he could help her with her situation and that he would “work with her” with regard to the attorney fees.  The lawyer set up a time to meet the undercover office who he believed to be H.S. and went to a hotel to meet her in December 2012. When the lawyer arrived at the hotel, he tried to hug and kiss the officer impersonating H.S. and made statements indicating that he wanted sex with her in exchange for legal services.

The lawyer and the Indiana Bar stipulated to the facts and to a one year suspension.  In mitigation, “(1) Respondent has no prior discipline; (2) following his arrest, Respondent sought help from the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”), he has been under a JLAP monitoring agreement, and he has been receiving psychological therapy and treatment; (3) Respondent was candid with police immediately following his arrest; and (4) Respondent has expressed remorse for his behavior.

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted the stipulation and suspended the lawyer for a minimum of one year with the requirement that he petition for reinstatement at the end of the suspension period and meet the requirements for reinstatement, which include satisfying “the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence remorse for his misconduct, a proper understanding of the standards imposed upon members of the bar.”

Bottom line:  This case involves lawyer who apparently abused his position as an assistant public defender to obtain information on an alleged prostitute for purposes of solicitation and then actually solicited an undercover police officer for prostitution at a hotel.   The lawyer had no previous discipline, was fully cooperative, and is receiving psychological therapy and treatment; however, he received a one year rehabilitative suspension for the misconduct.  I am not sure what might be more embarrassing for a lawyer than this type of misconduct and discipline.

Be careful out there (and please don’t do this).

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship 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

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline alleged sexual misconduct, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer discipline soliciting prostitution, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

New York ethics opinion provides guidance for lawyers regarding the ethical implications of attorney profiles and content on LinkedIn

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent New York ethics opinion which provides guidance to lawyers who use LinkedIn.com for professional enhancement as well as the ethical implications of attorney profiles.  The opinion is New York County Lawyers Association Professional Ethics Committee Formal Opinion 748 (March 10, 2015) and the link to the formal opinion is here: https://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/Publications/Publications1748_0.pdf

As the opinion notes, LinkedIn is a business-oriented social networking website which has become popular and is now commonly used by lawyers.  LinkedIn allows a lawyer to create a profile with background information, including work history and education, and links to other users based on their experience or connections.  Lawyers can also use the site to communicate with acquaintances, locate someone with a particular skill or background or to keep up with other lawyers’ professional activities and job changes.  The lawyer can also publish educational information on the site’s home page or create separate LinkedIn page.  I have a LinkedIn blog page which is here: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4043538&trk=groups_most_recent-h-logo

The opinion cautions that a lawyer’s content may be an advertisement and that New York Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 prohibits attorneys and law firms from disseminating an advertisement that contains false or misleading statements and/or claims.  The term “advertisement” includes “communications made in any form about the lawyer’s services, the primary purpose of which is retention of the lawyer or law firm for pecuniary gain as a result of the communication.”

The New York rule permits attorneys to include educational experience, but prohibits undisclosed paid endorsements and fictitious portrayals or references to lawyers not associated with the firm.  The New York rule also requires online content which is an advertisement to be labeled as “Attorney Advertising” and advertisements must also include a disclaimer that results are not guaranteed.

The opinion concludes that “(a)ttorneys may maintain profiles on LinkedIn, containing information such as education, work history, areas of practice, skills, and recommendations written by other LinkedIn users. A LinkedIn profile that contains only one’s education and current and past employment does not constitute Attorney Advertising. If an attorney includes additional information in his or her profile, such as a description of areas of practice or certain skills or endorsements, the profile may be considered Attorney Advertising, and should contain the disclaimers set forth in Rule 7.1. Categorizing certain information under the heading ‘Skills’ or ’Endorsements’ does not, however, constitute a claim to be a ‘Specialist’ under Rule 7.4, and is accordingly not barred, provided that the information is truthful and accurate.”

“Attorneys must ensure that all information in their LinkedIn profiles is truthful and not misleading, including endorsements and recommendations written by other LinkedIn users. If an attorney believes an endorsement or recommendation is not accurate, the attorney should exclude it from his or her profile. New York lawyers should periodically monitor and review the content of their LinkedIn profiles for accuracy.”

Bottom line:  As the opinion states, lawyers should carefully monitor their social media content to insure that it complies with the ethics rules in the lawyer’s jurisdiction(s).  If a communication is primarily intended to obtain clients and for pecuniary gain (and contains information that goes beyond the “tombstone language” permitted in that jurisdiction), the communication will most likely be considered to be an advertisement and all relevant rules of advertising must be followed.  This would efforts to insure that all information is accurate, that the content is not misleading, and the inclusion of any relevant disclaimers.  The Florida Bar’s advertising rules are similar to New York’s; however, lawyers in jurisdictions other than New York should not rely on this opinion and must review and comply with the relevant advertising rules.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship 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

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer ethics opinions Linkedin.com, Lawyer responsibilities AVVO and Linkedin, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

Illinois imposes one year suspension on (former) law firm partner who falsified and received $69,800.00 in client expense reimbursement

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Illinois Supreme Court Order which imposed a one year suspension on a law firm partner who falsified and received $69,800.00 in client expense reimbursement claims.  The case is In re: Lee Mark Smolen, Disciplinary Commission, M.R.27199, No. 2013PR00060 (March 12, 2015).  The summary disciplinary Order is here: http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Announce/2015/031215.pdf

As I reported in my January 12, 2015 Ethics Alert, a law firm audit found that the lawyer had submitted $69,800.00 in falsified taxi expenses and questioned an additional $379,000.00 reimbursed expenses.  The lawyer admitted that he “falsified and submitted for reimbursement more than 800 receipts for cab rides he did not take. He further admits he received reimbursement totaling $69,800 for the fabricated receipts.”

According to the Hearing Board Report, the expenses were charged to an unallocated client account which was “virtually unmonitored”.  The lawyer agreed that the law firm could withdraw $400,000.00 from his account to cover the expenses and the cost of the audit and he testified he used the cab money to pay for client entertainment, saving the time of making out expense reports.  He testified that he only slept three or four hours a night and typically spent 12 to 15 hours a day at work.

The Report further stated that the lawyer’s “mental health issues and his misconduct” were considered and one doctor opined there was a “loose association” between the lawyer’s personality disorder and his misconduct because the lawyer “was excessively devoted to work as a result of his obsessive-compulsive disorder.”  Another doctor stated that the lawyer’s depressive disorder and anxiety disorder led to “tremendous impairment of judgment” which led to the misconduct.  Both doctors found that the lawyer’s mental health played at least a minor role in his misconduct and gave it “some weight” as a mitigating factor.

 

According to the Report:  “We recognize that the amount of Respondent’s falsified expenses is greater than the amounts in the (cited) cases but in light of (the lawyer’s) significant mitigation we do not believe a suspension of more than one year is warranted.  We believe a one-year suspension addresses the severity of the misconduct and also takes into consideration the substantial mitigating factors.”

The Report recommended that (the lawyer) be suspended for one year and until he completed at least twelve months of continuous treatment with a psychiatrist. The lawyer’s suspension would terminate after one year if he “demonstrates his completion of treatment to the Administrator’s satisfaction.”  The Illinois Supreme Court adopted the Report and suspended the lawyer for one year with the recommended conditions.

Bottom line:  As I said previously, this lawyer admitted that he falsified and submitted for reimbursement more than 800 receipts for cab rides he did not take and received payment for nearly $70,000.00 from clients for the fabricated receipts.  An audit also questioned an additional $379,000.00 in reimbursed expenses.  In light of the large amount of the lawyer’s admitted misappropriation, it is surprising that the Board did not recommend disbarment for the misconduct and also that the Illinois Supreme Court approved the one year suspension recommendation.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship 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

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer expense reimbursement, Lawyer misappropriation, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer misrepresentations to law firm re billings, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

U.S. Supreme Court opinion finds that there is no automatic antitrust immunity for state professional licensing boards

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent interesting U.S. Supreme Court opinion which found that there is no automatic antitrust immunity for professional licensing boards.  The case is North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13–534. (USSC February 25, 2015) and the opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf.

According to the opinion, similar to many states, the North Carolina legislature delegated the regulation of dentists to a state dental board.  By state law, practicing dentists must fill a majority of the seats on the dental board and the board’s actions are not supervised by any state officials. The board moved to exclude non-dentists from the market for teeth-whitening services after dentists complained about the low prices that non-dentists charged for teeth whitening.  The board sent letters to non-dentists who offered teeth-whitening services demanding that they stop and encouraged malls to remove kiosks used for non-dentist teeth whitening services.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an administrative complaint alleging that the board’s move to exclude non-dentists from the market for teeth whitening services in North Carolina was an unfair method of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act.  An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Board’s motion to dismiss on the ground of state-action immunity.

 

The FTC affirmed the ruling, finding that even if the board had acted pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy to displace competition, it must be actively supervised by the state to claim immunity, which it was not.  After a hearing on the merits, the ALJ determined that the board had unreasonably restrained trade in violation of antitrust law.  The FTC again affirmed the ALJ, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the FTC.

In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit’s decision, holding that the board is not immune from the antitrust laws.  The USSC opinion states that, even though the board is an agency of the state, its actions must be supervised by the state in order to have antitrust immunity. The “formal designation given by the States” does not itself create immunity. The board in this case is controlled by market participants in the same occupation as those whom the board regulates.  “When a State empowers a group of active market participants to decide who can participate in its market, and on what terms, the need for supervision is manifest.”

 

According to the opinion, the requirement of state supervision applies to agencies “controlled by active market participants” and actions taken by boards with no involvement from market participants may not have to satisfy the supervision requirement.  The opinion also identifies factors regarding adequate state supervision, including the requirement that the state supervisor must actually review the substance of the agency’s actions and have the power to overrule or modify those actions.

Bottom line:  There has been prior litigation against state Bar entities past attacking the their state action immunity.  This opinion refers to three specific cases and appears to suggest that these cases should be interpreted to mean that only the actions of a Bar entity which are actively supervised by the state (i.e. the supreme court) should have antitrust immunity; however, the rest of a Bar entity’s actions may not have such immunity.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship 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

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier

Kentucky lawyer permanently disbarred after pleading guilty to felony “flagrant non-support” for failing to pay over $200,000.00 in child support

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss a recent Kentucky Supreme Court opinion disbarring a lawyer after the lawyer pled guilty to felony “flagrant non-support for failing to pay over $200,000.00 in child support. The case is Kentucky Bar Association v. Daniel Warren James, Case No. 2014-SC-000499-KB (Ky. SC February 19, 2015) and the opinion is here: http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2014-SC-000499-KB.pdf.

According to the opinion, the lawyer pled guilty in 2012 to a felony charge of “flagrant non-support”, received 5 years in prison with probation for 10 years and was ordered to pay $233,000.00 in restitution. On February 8, 2013, after the plea was entered, the Kentucky Bar Association Inquiry Commission filed a complaint against the lawyer and he failed to respond.

On March 11, 2014, the Commission filed formal charges against the lawyer. Count I alleged misconduct for committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer and Count II alleged misconduct for knowingly failing to respond to the February 8, 2013 complaint. The lawyer again failed to respond and was defaulted.

The lawyer had previously been suspended for five years for a multiple acts of misconduct, including not returning unearned fees, misappropriating client money for personal use, and altering billing statements. The lawyer admitted that misconduct and claimed that it was a result of the discontinuation of medication that he was taking for a mental health condition. As a condition of that suspension, the lawyer agreed to seek treatment through Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program (KYLAP) and to continue treatment as needed during the suspension period.

On August 21, 2014, the Kentucky Board of Governors filed its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations with the Supreme Court and unanimously recommended that the lawyer be found guilty and that he be permanently disbarred. In aggravation, the Board noted the $233,000.00 child support arrearage that the lawyer had failed to pay over a thirteen year period, his prior discipline, most of which involved the misuse of client funds, and his failure to respond to his clients and the Bar.

The Supreme Court opinion noted that a lawyer in Kentucky had never been disciplined for criminally failing to pay child support; however, it found that the conduct violated the lawyer’s duty “’to conduct (his) personal and professional life in such manner as to be above reproach’. Grigsby v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 181 S.W.3d 40, 42 (Ky. 2005). ‘Failing to pay court ordered child support encompasses several breaches, including: failure to satisfy the statutory obligation of supporting one’s child; failure to follow a court order; and violation of the attorney’s duty recognized in Grigsby.’” The lawyer was permanently disbarred.

Bottom line: This sole practitioner apparently had serious mental health issues which destroyed his practice and resulted in his permanent disbarment. All lawyers, especially solos, must address the extreme stress involved in the practice of law and be fully aware of the consequences of personal and professional misconduct (including willful or “flagrant” failure to pay child support) that may be triggered due to the stress of practice (and life) and seek medical help.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship 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, deceit, dishonesty, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer flagrant and willful failure to pay child support, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer wilful failure to comply with court order

Florida Bar will not appeal Federal judge’s order enjoining enforcement of past results rule as applied by Bar guidelines

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert with an update on the December 8, 2014 Federal Judge’s opinion which enjoined The Florida Bar from enforcing its guidelines regarding past results in attorney advertising in indoor and outdoor display, television and radio media as a violation of the First Amendment. The order/injunction is in the case of Robert Rubenstein v. The Florida Bar, Case No. 14-CIV-20786-BLOOM/Valle (U.S.S.D. Fla. 12/8/14).

As I reported in my 12/18/14 Ethics Alert blog, a Florida lawyer (Rubenstein) filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against The Florida Bar challenging the constitutionality of the Bar’s guidelines prohibiting the use of past results in lawyer advertising in indoor and outdoor display, television and radio media. The lawyer filed a motion for summary judgment and, in her Order/injunction dated December 8, 2014, Federal District Judge Beth Bloom granted a summary judgment in favor of the Florida lawyer and ruled that The Florida Bar rules prohibiting the use of past results in lawyer advertising as applied by the Bar’s guidelines were unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In response to the federal District Judge’s order and injunction, the Bar’s Board of Governors repealed the guidelines on using past results in indoor and outdoor display, radio, and television advertising; however, the Board has indicated that such advertisements must still be objectively verifiable and make no material omissions.

According to a recent ABA online article: “’The bar will not appeal,’ says Barry Richard, a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig in Tallahassee who was lead attorney for the bar in Rubenstein. ‘The board of governors has repealed the rule that was at issue.’”

The ABA article also states: “Deepak Gupta, the founding principal of Gupta Beck in Washington, D.C., which represented Rubenstein, says, “This decision is likely to have a major national impact. It says to state bar regulators across the country: ‘Don’t try this at home. If you’re considering emulating Florida’s restrictive approach, you will face a First Amendment challenge and you will lose.'” The ABA article is here: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/federal_court_strikes_down_florida_bar_restrictions_on_lawyers_citing_past

Bottom line: The Court’s Order/injunction and the Bar’s repeal of the application of the Bar rule in its guidelines for advertising past results is certainly a victory for the lawyer/plaintiff in this case and may leave the door open to other challenges to The Florida Bar’s advertising rules.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship 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 2013 Florida comprehensive advertising rule revisions, Attorney Ethics, Florida 2013 advertising rules federal lawsuit, Florida 2013 comprehensive lawyer advertising rules, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising past results, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism