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According to the opinion, the lawyer had posted multiple excerpts of unpublished and public judicial opinions related to fee applications in employment discrimination cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination on his law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

Florida Twelfth Circuit Judge charged with misconduct for allegedly accepting Tampa Bay Rays tickets from firm with case pending before him

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the February 1, 2016 Notice of Formal Charges filed by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) against Florida Twelfth Circuit Judge John Lakin for allegedly requesting and accepting Tampa Bay Rays tickets from a law firm which had a case pending before him.  The JQC charges are here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2016/182/2016-182_notice_77834.pdf

According to the JQC Notice of Formal Charges and charges, in June 2015, the judge was presiding over the personal injury case of Wittke v. Walmart June, wherein the plaintiff accused Walmart of negligence, which caused her to fall and injure herself.  After a trial, Walmart was found by the jury not to be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.  The day after the verdict was rendered, the judge asked his judicial assistant to contact the law firm which defended the plaintiff to request tickets for that night’s game between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Boston Red Sox.

The judge received five tickets valued at about $100 each, and he indicated that he only used two of the tickets.  The judge was from the Boston area.  According to the JQC Notice:  “The tickets you received were excellent seats, being located seven to eight rows back, between home plate and first base”.

According to the JQC Notice, the plaintiff’s law firm filed a motion 6 days later to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.  The motion was heard on August 21, 2015; however, the judge did not rule at that time.  On August 25, 2015, the judge requested and received five more tickets to a Tampa Bay Rays game from the law firm and, on August 26, 2015, the judge issued an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial.  The Order stated that  “(n)o reasonable jury could have returned a verdict finding that the Defendant was not at least partially liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff based on the evidence presented at trial.”   The Notice further states:  “(y)our extraordinary action allowed the Plaintiff a second opportunity to seek damages from Walmart. You have acknowledged that during your tenure on the bench you have never before overturned a jury verdict.”

According to the JQC Notice, the Chief Circuit Judge for the 12th Judicial District told the judge his conduct was inappropriate and told him to report it to the JQC.  The judge then disclosed that he had received tickets from the firm both to the JQC and to Walmart attorneys; however, according to the Notice, “(y)our subsequent disclosure to the parties on October 9, 2015, stated only that, ‘I previously received Tampa Bay Rays baseball tickets from the…law firm.’  Your disclosure did not include the dates that you accepted the tickets, nor did you even explain that you had accepted the tickets while the Wittke matter was pending.”  The JQC Notice also states that the judge received baseball tickets from two other law firms which have appeared before him.

The JQC rules prohibit judges from conducting activities outside of the courtroom which cast a reasonable doubt on his or her ability to be impartial, undermine the judge’s independence, or demean the judicial office and from “accepting gifts, favors, bequests or loans from lawyers or their firms if they have come or are likely to come before the judge.”

The JQC rules provide that the judge may file an answer to the Notice and charges within 20 days. The JQC will hold hearings and make a recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court, which will issue a formal order/opinion and impose discipline if the judge is found guilty.

Bottom line: This is a somewhat extraordinary and surprising case.  Perhaps the judge was unaware of the rules prohibiting accepting gifts from lawyers, specifically when the case is pending before him; however, under the most unfavorable argument, the judge could be alleged to have accepted the gift and issued favorable ruling as a direct result of the law firm’s gift.  Both lawyers and judges must be very aware of these clear prohibitions and also that the consequences of a violation of the rules, whether intentional or unintentional, will most likely be very severe.

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail 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

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge ethics accepting gifts, Judicial ethics, Judicial ethics accepting gifts from lawyers with pending cases

Lawyer directory website Avvo is offering fixed fee legal services on a limited basis and plans to expand the services

 

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent decision by the lawyer directory website Avvo to offer legal services to individuals through selected lawyers for a fixed fee and charge the lawyers a marketing fee to participate.  An ABA article dated January 12, 2015 discussing Avvo’s plans is here: ABA 1-12-16 Avvo legal services article

According to the ABA article, Avvo recently began testing the new service and it plans to offer the services more broadly over the next few months.  The service is called Avvo Legal Services offers a variety of limited-scope legal services at a fixed fee. The legal services include review of legal documents such as business contracts and nondisclosure agreements as well as more complicated matters such as uncontested divorces and citizenship applications.

According to the article, Laura Moriarty, Avvo’s vice president of communications, stated that Avvo is testing the service in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix and will begin offering the services in additional markets in February 2016. “Moriarty declined to identify the markets where it will initially be offered except to confirm that one will be Massachusetts.”

The ABA article states that “Avvo first got into the business of offering legal advice last year when it launched Avvo Advisor, a service that provides on-demand legal advice by phone for a fixed fee of $39 for 15 minutes. With this new service, Avvo will determine the types of services to be provided and the prices. Attorneys who sign up will be able to select which services they want to offer. When a client buys a service, Avvo sends the client’s information to the attorney. The attorney then contacts the client directly and completes the service.”

“Clients will be able to choose the attorney they want from a list of those within their geographic area who have registered to participate. Clients pay the full price for the service up front.  After the service is completed, Avvo sends the attorney the full legal fee, paid once a month for fees earned the prior month. As a separate transaction, the attorney pays Avvo a per-service marketing fee. This is done as a separate transaction to avoid fee-splitting, according to Avvo. Attorneys pay nothing to participate except for the per-case marketing fee.”

“Among the services to be offered will be document review for $199, for which the attorney will pay a $50 marketing fee; formation of a single-member LLC for $595, with a $125 marketing fee; uncontested divorce for $995, with a $200 marketing fee; and green card application for $2,995, with a $400 marketing fee.  The terms of the service require attorneys to contact a new client within one business day for a 30-minute introductory call. If the attorney determines the client is not the right fit, the attorney can decline the representation.”

An online FAQ about the legal services on Avvo’s website states that “(l)ocal clients purchase legal services, choose the attorney they want to work with, and pay the full price of the service up front. The chosen attorney then completes the service for the client and is paid the full legal fee. As a separate transaction, the chosen attorney pays a per-service marketing fee for the completed, paid service.

Avvo General Counsel Josh King also states in the FAQ that Avvo is not acting as a lawyer referral service and that lawyers should not be concerned about fee splitting since “(f)ee splits are not inherently unethical. They only become a problem if the split creates a situation that may compromise a lawyer’s professional independence of judgment. We believe that Avvo Legal Services fees, like credit card fees, would involve the sort of technical fee split that would not create such a potential for compromise. Nonetheless, we have tried to keep things simple and clear by making the per-service marketing fee a separate charge.”  The FAQ is here:  Avvo legal services FAQ

Bottom line:  Although it is clear that AVVO (a third party non-lawyer website) is attempting to structure this legal services arrangement in a way to avoid ethics issues, whether this arrangement is ethical or unethical is subject to further analysis and interpretation by each jurisdiction regarding fee splitting and potential lawyer referral issues.  Lawyers who are interested in participating should carefully review their jurisdiction’s Bar rules and/or consult with and consult their Bar or consult with a lawyer familiar with the Bar rules before agreeing to participate.

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail 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

www.jac-law.com

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules.  If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited.  Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Avvo legal services, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer fee splitting, Lawyer Referral Services

Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal upholds lawyer’s $350,000.00 judgment against client who posted false online reviews/comments

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal upholding a judgment in a lawsuit filed by a lawyer alleging libel for false online comments..  The case is Ann-Marie Giustibelli, P.A. et al v. Copia Blake and Peter Birzon, Case No. 4D14-3231 (Florida 4th DCA, January 6, 2016) and the link to the opinion is here: http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Jan.%202016/01-06-16/4D14-3231.op.pdf

According to the opinion, the lawyer, who practices in Plantation, Florida, represented Copia Blake in her divorce from Peter Birzon; however, (a)fter a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship between Guistibelli and her client, Blake and oddly, Birzon as well, took to the Internet to post defamatory reviews of Guistibelli.”  The reviews complained about the lawyer’s representation alleged that the lawyer had “altered her charges to four times the original (fee) quote with no explanation” and then submitted doctored evidence to the court during the litigation to cover up the false statements.

The lawyer sued Blake and Birzon for libel and damages based on the false online reviews (and also for breach of contract) and was awarded $350,000.00 in punitive damages on the libel allegation after both admitted in court that they posted the reviews and “both admitted at trial that Giustibelli had not charged Blake four times more than what was quoted in the agreement.” The opinion quoted the online statements:

“She misrepresented her fees with regards to the contract I initially signed. The contract she submitted to the courts for her fees were 4 times her original quote and pages of the original had been exchanged to support her claims…”

“No integrity. Will say one thing and do another. Her fees outweigh the truth.”

“Altered her charges to 4 times the original quote with no explanation.”

Blake and Birzon argued that their internet reviews “constituted statements of opinion and thus were protected by the First Amendment and not actionable as defamation.”  The opinion found that “all the reviews contained allegations that Giustibelli lied to Blake regarding the attorney’s fee.  Two of the reviews contained the allegation that Giustibelli falsified a contract. These are factual allegations, and the evidence showed they were false.”

The opinion also addressed the argument that libel per se no longer exists after the United States Supreme Court opinion in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (here: Gertz v. Welch USSC 1974) and stated that “the Florida Supreme Court recognized that, with respect to a libel action against the media, it is no longer accurate to say that words “amounting to a libel per se necessarily import damage and malice in legal contemplation, so these elements need not be pleaded or proved, as they are conclusively presumed as a matter of law.’” (emphasis supplied).  The opinion also noted that, since the lawyer was not a media defendant, libel per se still applied.

Bottom line:  According to this Florida appellate opinion, a Florida lawyer can sue a client (and her spouse or ex-spouse) for false and libelous online statements and, since the lawyer was not a media defendant, libel per se applies if the statements are shown to be factually false.

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail 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

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under client online false statements libel, Lawyer libel against clients, Lawyer suing client for libel

New York City Bar Association issues ethics opinion addressing LinkedIn profiles and New York attorney advertising rules

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Formal Opinion of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics which concluded that a lawyer’s LinkedIn profile is not subject to New York Bar advertising rules if it is not posted specifically for the purpose of attracting clients and the profile will be considered to be attorney advertising only if it meets all five of the criteria listed in the opinion.  The opinion is Formal Opinion 2015-7: Application of Attorney Advertising Rules to LinkedIn (December 2015) and the link to the opinion is here: http://www.nycbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinions-local/2015opinions/2350-formal-opinion-2015-7-application-of-attorney-advertising-rules-to-linkedin

According to the opinion, a New York lawyer’s LinkedIn profile or other content will be considered to be lawyer advertising only if it meets all five of the following criteria:

  • it is a communication made by or on behalf of the lawyer;
  • the primary purpose of the LinkedIn content is to attract new clients to retain the lawyer for pecuniary gain;
  • the LinkedIn content relates to the legal services offered by the lawyer;
  • the LinkedIn content is intended to be viewed by potential new clients; and
  • the LinkedIn content does not fall within any recognized exception to the definition of attorney advertising.

The opinion further states that “(g)iven the numerous reasons that lawyers use LinkedIn, it should not be presumed that an attorney who posts information about herself on LinkedIn necessarily does so for the primary purpose of attracting paying clients. For example, including a list of ‘Skills’, a description of one’s practice areas, or displaying ‘Endorsements’ or ‘Recommendations’, without more, does not constitute attorney advertising.”

The opinion concludes that: “(i)f an attorney’s individual LinkedIn profile or other content meets the definition of attorney advertising, the attorney must comply with the requirements of Rules 7.1, 7.4 and 7.5, including, but not limited to: (1) labeling the LinkedIn content ‘Attorney Advertising’; (2) including the name, principal law office address and telephone number of the lawyer; (3) pre-approving any content posted on LinkedIn; (4) preserving a copy for at least one year; and (5) refraining from false, deceptive or misleading statements. These are only some of the requirements associated with attorney advertising. Before disseminating any advertisements, whether on social media or otherwise, the attorney should ensure that those advertisements comply with all requirements set forth in Article 7 of the New York Rules.

Bottom line:  According to this New York City ethics opinion, a LinkedIn profile will not be considered to be a lawyer advertisement unless certain conditions are met.  It is my opinion that most, if not all, other jurisdictions would agree with this analysis and opinion.  This opinion provides a good summary of the conditions which may cause a LinkedIn profile to become a lawyer  advertisement.

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail 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

www.jac-law.com

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules.  If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited.  Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Florida comprehensive advertising rule revisions, Attorney Ethics, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising Linkedin.com, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer ethics opinions Linkedin.com, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

Washington State Bar suspends some ethics opinions because of antitrust concerns arising from 2015 U.S. Supreme Court opinion

Hello and welcome to this New Year’s Eve 2015 Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent decision of the Washington State Bar to suspend some ethics opinions because of antitrust concerns arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2015 opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.  I previously blogged about the Supreme Court’s decision here: USSC NC dental licensing opinion, the LegalZoom antitrust lawsuit in North Carolina based upon the USSC opinion here: LegalZoom filed antitrust lawsuit against NC Bar and the settlement of that lawsuit here:  LegalZoom settles antitrust lawsuit against NC Bar.

According to a recent ABA Journal article, the Washington State Bar Association has advised its ethics committee to stop issuing ethics opinions which could be interpreted as having the effect of restraining trade in the legal services market.  The bar stated that it suspended the opinions so it could “proceed very deliberately” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2015 opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission. 

That U.S. Supreme Court decision permitted an antitrust action against the North Carolina state dentistry board for its decision prohibiting non-dentists from whitening teeth to proceed. The opinion stated that when a state board is controlled by active market participants in the market it regulates, state-action antitrust immunity cannot be applied unless the restraint of trade is affirmatively expressed by state policy and the policy is actively supervised by the state.

Bottom line:  This is more fallout from the 2015 USSC Dental Board decision.  As I have stated in my previous blogs, there have been lawsuits against state Bars in the past attacking the entity’s state action immunity.  The Supreme Court opinion refers to three specific cases and appears to suggest that these cases should be interpreted to mean that only the actions of a state entity which is actively supervised by the state (i.e. the Supreme Court in the case of a state Bar) have antitrust immunity and the rest of the entity’s actions may not have such immunity.

I wish you and yours a very happy and healthy 2016!

Disclaimer:  this e-mail 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

www.jac-law.com

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules.  If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited.  Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under .S. Supreme Court, Attorney Ethics, Bar antitrust, BAR UPL antitrust, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer antitrust, Lawyer ethics, LegalZoom, LegalZoom antitrust, North Carolina Dental Board, Uncategorized

The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors gives final approval to Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) amendment related to resolution of extraordinary liens in contingency matters

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent approval by The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) of an amendment to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) related to extraordinary liens in contingency matters.  I previously blogged about the proposed revisions to Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) in my 6/6/13 and 9/5/13 Ethics Alerts.

At its meeting on December 4, 2015, the BOG waived second reading of the proposed rule and took final action and the proposed rule amendment will be filed in the existing case: In Re: Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.5 – Fees and Costs for Legal Services, Case No. SC14-2112 on January 15, 2016, pursuant the Supreme Court’s order in that case.

The BOG had previously approved an amendment to the rule allowing the retention of attorneys to handle medical and other liens under a reverse contingency fee with the consent of the client; however, the Florida Supreme Court rejected that rule amendment and opined that it is the responsibility of the lawyer as part of the original contingency contract to resolve the liens.

The rule amendment that was approved by the BOG on December 4, 2015 addresses the use of lien modification attorneys at the end of a personal injury or wrongful death case to handle negotiations over extraordinary liens.

Under the proposed amendment, attorneys can be employed in extraordinary cases with full disclosure and written approval of the client and with a judge’s approval. The judge would also be authorized to review and adjust the fees both of the main tort attorney and attorneys handling the liens.

Bottom line:  As I previously stated, it is the general practice of lawyers in Florida to resolve client liens on behalf of the client as part of the representation; therefore, this revision will not generally impact lawyers in most cases; however, if there are extraordinary circumstances, the proposed rule revision would require the client to give written approval the retention of the attorney to handle the extraordinary liens.  A judge would also have to give approval and would be authorized to review and adjust the fees both of the main tort attorney and attorneys handling the liens.

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, Contingency fee agreements, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule 4-1.5 resolution of extraordinary liens, Florida Bar rule amendment resolution of extraordinary liens, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer lien resolution in contingency cases