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According to the opinion, the lawyer had posted multiple excerpts of unpublished and public judicial opinions related to fee applications in employment discrimination cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination on his law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

Advertisements

1 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

Herssein law firm files emergency motion with Florida Supreme Court to quash 3rd DCA opinion and order claiming violation of stay

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert update which will discuss the recent (December 13, 2017) Motion to Quash filed by the Herssein law firm in the Florida Supreme Court proceeding challenging a Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge’s denial of a motion to disqualify a lawyer who was a former judge and “friend” of the judge on Facebook.  The case is Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A. d/b/a Herssein Law Group and Reuven T. Herssein v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No.: 2015-015825-CA-43 (Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC17-1848).  The Herssein law firm’s Motion to Quash is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2017/1848/2017-1848_motion_115391_motion2dother20substantive.pdf.

The law firm filed an emergency motion on December 13, 2017 asking the Florida Supreme Court to quash a December 13, 2017 3rd DCA opinion quashing two discovery orders and an order granting fees to USAA, claiming that the opinion and order violated the Supreme Court’s Stay Order dated December 7, 2017.

As I previously blogged, the Herssein law firm moved to disqualify the judge from a contract dispute against their client, the United States Automobile Association (USAA) in which a lawyer who represented a non-party USAA employee in the matter was identified as a potential witness/party.  The law firm argued that the judge could not be impartial in the case and cited JEAC Op. 2009-20 (Nov.17, 2009), which states: “Listing lawyers who may appear before the judge as ‘friends’ on a judge’s social networking page reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer ‘friends’ are in a special position to influence the judge.”  In 2012, the 4th DCA relied on the JEAC opinion in disqualifying a judge from a case for being Facebook friends with the criminal prosecutor. Domville v. State, 103 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko found that she was not required to recuse herself from the case and the Herssein firm asked the Florida Supreme Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision under Article V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const., and Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv).  In a December 7, 2017 Order, the Court issued a stay of the lower court proceedings and, in an Order dated December 11, 2017, accepted jurisdiction and provided a briefing schedule.

Bottom line:  In a strange turn of events, the law firm has filed a motion claiming that the 3rd DCA rendered an opinion and order which violate the Florida Supreme Court’s stay of the lower court proceedings and asking the Supreme Court to quash the opinion and order.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert 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.

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida Bar, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Ethics Opinions judges connecting on Facebook and LinkedIn, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge disqualification- Facebook friends with lawyer, Judges and lawyer friends on Facebook, Judicial ethics, Judicial Ethics Facebook and LinkedIn, Lawyer and Judge Friends on Facebook Motion to Disqualify Judge, Lawyer ethics Facebook, Lawyers and social media, Uncategorized

Herssein law firm files emergency motion with Florida Supreme Court to quash 3rd DCA opinion and order claiming violation of stay in Facebook disqualification matter

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert update which will discuss the recent (December 13, 2017) Motion to Quash filed by the Herssein law firm in the Florida Supreme Court proceeding challenging a Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge’s denial of a motion to disqualify a lawyer who was a former judge and “friend” of the judge on Facebook.  The case is Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A. d/b/a Herssein Law Group and Reuven T. Herssein v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No.: 2015-015825-CA-43 (Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC17-1848).  The Herssein law firm’s Motion to Quash is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2017/1848/2017-1848_motion_115391_motion2dother20substantive.pdf.

The law firm filed an emergency motion on December 13, 2017 asking the Florida Supreme Court to quash a December 13, 2017 3rd DCA opinion quashing two discovery orders and an order granting fees to USAA, claiming that the opinion and order violated the Supreme Court’s Stay Order dated December 7, 2017.

As I previously blogged, the Herssein law firm moved to disqualify the judge from a contract dispute against their client, the United States Automobile Association (USAA) in which a lawyer who represented a non-party USAA employee in the matter was identified as a potential witness/party.  The law firm argued that the judge could not be impartial in the case and cited JEAC Op. 2009-20 (Nov.17, 2009), which states: “Listing lawyers who may appear before the judge as ‘friends’ on a judge’s social networking page reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer ‘friends’ are in a special position to influence the judge.”  In 2012, the 4th DCA relied on the JEAC opinion in disqualifying a judge from a case for being Facebook friends with the criminal prosecutor. Domville v. State, 103 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko found that she was not required to recuse herself from the case and the Herssein firm asked the Florida Supreme Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision under Article V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const., and Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv).  In a December 7, 2017 Order, the Court issued a stay of the lower court proceedings and, in an Order dated December 11, 2017, accepted jurisdiction and provided a briefing schedule.

Bottom line:  In a strange turn of events, the law firm has filed a motion claiming that the 3rd DCA rendered an opinion and order which violate the Florida Supreme Court’s stay of the lower court proceedings and asking the Supreme Court to quash the opinion and order.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert 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.

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge disqualification- Facebook friends with lawyer, Judges and lawyer friends on Facebook, Judicial ethics, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics Facebook, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

Florida Supreme Court stays lower court case where judge found that Facebook “friendship” with lawyer was not disqualifying

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert update which will discuss the recent (12/7/17) Order of the Florida Supreme Court granting the Herssein law firm’s Motion to Stay the lower court proceeding wherein Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge denied a motion to disqualify a lawyer who was a “friend” on the judge on Facebook.  The case is Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A. d/b/a Herssein Law Group and Reuven T. Herssein v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No.: 2015-015825-CA-43 (Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC17-1848).  The Herssein law firm’s Motion for Stay is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2017/1848/2017-1848_motion_114995_motion2dstay2028proceedings20below29.pdf and the December 7, 2017 Florida Supreme Court Order is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2017/1848/2017-1848_order_224307_o03bo.pdf.

As I previously blogged, the Third DCA upheld the decision of Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko that she was not required to recuse herself from a case in which she was a Facebook “friend” of the lawyer for one of the witnesses/potential parties.  The lawyer was also a former judge with whom she worked before he resigned as a circuit judge.  This decision departs from a previous 4th DCA opinion and an opinion of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (JEAC).

The Third DCA opinion states:

“A random name drawn from a list of Facebook ‘friends’ probably belongs to casual friend, an acquaintance, an old classmate, a person with whom the member shares a common hobby, a ‘friend of a friend’ or even a local celebrity like a coach.  An assumption that all Facebook ‘friends’ rise to the level of a close relationship that warrants disqualification simply does not reflect the current nature of this type of electronic social networking.”

The Herssein law firm had moved to disqualify the judge from presiding over a contract dispute against their client, the United States Automobile Association (USAA) in which an attorney named Reyes represented a non-party USAA employee in the matter, who was identified as a potential witness/party.  The law firm argued that the judge could not be impartial in the case and cited JEAC Op. 2009-20 (Nov.17, 2009).  That opinion states: “Listing lawyers who may appear before the judge as ‘friends’ on a judge’s social networking page reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer ‘friends’ are in a special position to influence the judge.”  In 2012, the 4th DCA relied on the JEAC opinion in disqualifying a judge from a case for being Facebook friends with the criminal prosecutor. Domville v. State, 103 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

The Third DCA opinion states that Facebook friendships could represent a close relationship that would require disqualification, however, many do not.  The opinion concluded:

“In fairness to the Fourth District’s decision in Domville and the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee’s 2009 opinion, electronic social media is evolving at an exponential rate. Acceptance as a Facebook “friend” may well once have given the impression of close friendship and affiliation. Currently, however, the degree of intimacy among Facebook “friends” varies greatly. The designation of a person as a “friend” on Facebook does not differentiate between a close friend and a distant acquaintance. Because a “friend” on a social networking website is not necessarily a friend in the traditional sense of the word, we hold that the mere fact that a judge is a Facebook “friend” with a lawyer for a potential party or witness, without more, does not provide a basis for a well-grounded fear that the judge cannot be impartial or that the judge is under the influence of the Facebook “friend.” On this point we respectfully acknowledge we are in conflict with the opinion of our sister court in Domville.”

The Herssein law firm filed a Notice asking the Florida Supreme Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision under Article V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const., and Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv). In support of the request, the Notice states:  “The decision expressly and directly affects a class of constitutional or state officers; all V judges in Florida, and the decision expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of another district court of appeal on the same question of law.”

Bottom line:  As I said in my previous blogs, the lower court’s order and the 3rd DCA opinion is contrary to the 2009 JEAC opinion and the 2012 4th  DCA opinion and acknowledges that it is in conflict with that opinion; however, it does provide the rationale that each case should be decided by examining the facts and the relationship.  This would seem to create potential confusion and potential disqualification motions would then have to be decided on a case by case basis.  The Florida Supreme Court has now stayed the lower court matter while it presumably looks at the issue and decides whether to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction.

Again, it would seem to be prudent for judges and lawyers who may appear before them not to be “friends” or otherwise connect on social media and professional networking sites or, if they are already connected and a case is assigned, to immediately remove the connection, disclose it to all parties, and (the judge may) possibly provide an option to recuse if the party believes that it could be potentially prejudiced.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert 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.

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Ethics Opinions judges connecting on Facebook and LinkedIn, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge disqualification- Facebook friends with lawyer, Judicial ethics, Judicial Ethics Facebook and LinkedIn, Lawyer and Judge Friends on Facebook Motion to Disqualify Judge, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics Facebook, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

Startup app TIKD sues Florida Bar for alleged antitrust violations; Florida Bar moves to disqualify former president from case

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent lawsuit filed by Startup app TIKD Services against The Florida Bar and the Ticket Clinic law firm for, inter alia, antitrust violations and the Bar’s Motion to Disqualify its former president, Ramón A. Abadin from representing TIKD, claiming that he was privy to privileged and confidential communications and information related to the matter.  The case is TIKD Services LLC, v. The Florida Bar, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-24103-MGC (U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida-Miami Division).

The owner of the company, Chris Riley, says he got the idea for TIKD after he received a speeding ticket in Miami and had to pay a lawyer and was assessed fines and costs.  He then came up with an app to help motorists challenge their tickets without having to go to court.  The app permits the ticketed person to upload a photo of the ticket and pay a fixed amount.  TIKD then retains an attorney to represent that person and, if he or she is ultimately is assessed with points against his or her license, TIKD refunds the payment and also pays the cost of the ticket.  The TIKD business model is based on the fact that contested traffic tickets are often dismissed or a lower fine is assessed and, since TIKD deals in volume, it can charge a lower price than a lawyer who is separately retained by an individual.

The Florida Bar issued a staff opinion finding that lawyers who work with TIKD and similar programs could be in violation of various Florida Bar ethics rules, including fee splitting and interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.  TIKD states that its services fully comply with Florida Bar ethics rules and that lawyers who represent the individuals receive a flat fee and are independent practitioners “over whom TIKD does not exercise any direction or control.”

TIKD subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging conspiracy, restraint of trade, tortious interference with business relationships, and antitrust violations.  The lawyers representing TIKD include Ramón A. Abadin, a recent former President of the Florida Bar.  The defendants include, among others, The Florida Bar and attorney Mark S. Good, who founded The Ticket Clinic; which has offices in Florida, Georgia and California.

According to the federal lawsuit, The Florida Bar advised TIKD that it was opening an unlicensed practice of law investigation into the company’s activities after the company was featured in a Miami Herald story.  A few months later, attorneys with The Ticket Clinic, a Miami law firm that handles traffic tickets, threatened to report two of TIKD’s lawyers to the Bar if they continued to work with TIKD.  Litigation was later filed and the parties reached a settlement last August; however, TIKD alleges that the Bar and the Miami lawyer firm continued a “concerted effort” to put it out of business and that Ticket Clinic lawyers continued filing “baseless ethics complaints” against attorneys represent TIKD customers.

On December 1, 2017, The Florida Bar filed a Motion to Disqualify Ramón A. Abadin alleging that, during his 2015-16 term as president, he “was provided attorney-client and attorney work-product communications and advice about and involving the specific antitrust issues and allegations asserted in this action”, including an amicus brief that was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015).  In that opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the N.C. dental board did not have state action immunity because its decisions were final and not subject to review. The Florida Bar joined in an amicus brief in that case arguing state action immunity should apply.

Bottom line:  This appears to be the one of the first cases filed in Florida which directly alleges that The Florida Bar’s procedures violate the Sherman Antitrust Act based upon the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.  As an added element of intrigue, the Bar’s very recent former president was among the lawyers filing the complaint and the Bar has filed a motion to disqualify him from the matter.

Stay tuned…and 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.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Bar antitrust, Bar regulation and antitrust, BAR UPL antitrust, Florida Bar, Florida Bar TIKD antitrust lawsuit, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer antitrust, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, North Carolina Dental Board, North Carolina dental whitening case and UPL, UPL and professional speech, UPL North Carolina federal judge opinion on regulation of UPL

Wisconsin lawyer suspended for, inter alia, smuggling heavy toothbrushes and red pepper into prison for client

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion which suspended a Wisconsin lawyer for four months for, inter alia, bringing heavy toothbrushes to client in prison and failing to adequately communicate with a drunken driving client.  The case is In the Matter of Steven Cohen, Case No.: 2015AP1350-D and the opinion is here: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=202686

According to the opinion, the lawyer was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1996. He received a private reprimand in 2007 after his conviction for one count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct which resulted from an dispute involving the lawyer and his wife.

One count of the disciplinary complaint alleged that, in 2013, the lawyer smuggled two heavy toothbrushes and red pepper to a client who was in prison after being convicted on homicide charges.  Prison authorities found the items in a search of the client after discovering a discarded white pastry bag containing a doughnut and an empty toothbrush package.  The authorities also said that the toothbrushes were heavier than the toothbrushes given to inmates and could be made into shanks (sharpened weapons), and that the crushed red pepper could be made into pepper spray.

The opinion states that: “(w)hen correctional officers interviewed Attorney Cohen about the items, he denied knowing anything about them.  Following additional investigation, Attorney Cohen was arrested for delivering contraband into the Columbia Correctional Institution. In February of 2014, the Columbia County district attorney filed a complaint charging Attorney Cohen with one felony count of delivering illegal articles to an inmate and one misdemeanor count of resisting or obstructing an officer.”

In November 2014, the lawyer pled no contest and was found guilty of a felony count of delivering illegal articles to an inmate, along with two misdemeanors.  Judgment on the felony charge was deferred.  The lawyer said that he brought the items to the prison after his client requested a toothbrush and some food and that his only motive was “from concern for the care of the inmate, and desire to serve.”

The second, third, and forth counts of the complaint alleged that the lawyer accepted a $2,500.00 fee from a DUI client without a written fee agreement and then failed to adequately communicate with the client.  When the client demanded a refund, the lawyer returned half of the fee. He denied that he failed to communicate with the client, but did not provide any documentation to support the denial.  The lawyer also claimed that he had e-mailed the client; however, the client said he did not have an e-mail address.

According to the opinion, the lawyer testified that he did not respond to the client’s telephone calls because he was not ready to speak with the client, which was “a normal trial tactic.”  He also said he did not respond since he tells his clients to call him on his cell telephone rather than his land line, and the client called on his land line. He also claimed his secretary does not take messages on the land line.

The lawyer was suspended for 4 months effective December 29, 2017 and required to pay $8,608.20 in disciplinary costs.

Bottom line:  This lawyer appears to have been attempting to provide an imprisoned client with the tools to injure other inmates, whether in self defense or otherwise.  Obviously, this was improper and the lawyer was suspended for 4 months for those actions, as well as his failure to communicate with another client and charging an improper fee.

Be careful out there.     

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert 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.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

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 conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer discipline- criminal misconduct smuggling contraband to client in prison, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements

California law requires California Bar to split into mandatory regulatory and voluntary trade association entities

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent California law that requires the California Bar to split into separate regulatory and trade association entities, which appears to be in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s North Carolina dental antitrust case in 2015.  The State Bar of California’s press release announcing the “historic” law is here: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News-Events/News-Releases/ArtMID/10234/ArticleID/525/State-Bar-prepares-to-implement-historic-reforms-followingGov-Brown-signature-on-the-agency%E2%80%99s-annual-fee-bill

According to the State Bar press release: “Today (October 2, 2017) Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 36 into law, the fee bill for the State Bar of California. In addition to setting the annual licensing fee for lawyers, SB 36 includes historic reforms for the public protection agency.”

Under the law, effective in 2019, the California Bar will act only as the disciplinary and regulatory agency and membership will be mandatory for all of the state’s lawyers.  The current 19-member Bar board will transition into a group of 13 individuals serving four-year terms.  Six of the 13 members must be members of the public.  All board members will be appointed by the California Supreme Court, the state legislature, and the governor and will no longer be elected.

A separate nonprofit entity will be created for trade association activities and will include all Bar sections.  Membership in that entity will be voluntary and will include an annual membership fee.

The California Bar must also comply with a California Supreme Court policy to identify and address any proposed decision of the board of trustees which raises antitrust concerns.  This requirement is clearly an attempt to avoid allegations of antitrust violations which were found by the U.S. Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13–534. (USSC February 25, 2015).

In that 2015 case, the USSC found that the North Carolina dental regulatory board, which was made up of primarily dentists, did not have state-action antitrust immunity in its attempts to prohibit non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services to the public.

The regulation of lawyers (and other licensed professionals) in Florida and other states is implemented through boards, commissions, committees, or other similar entities which investigate and make findings.  In Florida, there is no separate trade association; however, findings by Bar Counsel, grievance committees, and the Bar Board of Governors are subject to review by the Florida Supreme Court.

I previously blogged about North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission and its aftermath in my Ethics Alerts here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/u-s-supreme-court-opinion-finds-that-there-is-no-automatic-antitrust-immunity-for-state-professional-licensing-boards/, here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/legalzoom-files-federal-antitrust-lawsuit-against-the-north-carolina-state-bar-citing-2015-ussc-dental-board-case/, and here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/legalzoom-settles-multi-million-dollar-antitrust-suit-against-the-north-carolina-state-bar-with-agreement-to-continue-operating/

In some states, these antitrust issues are most likely not in play.   For example, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission oversees the registration and discipline of attorneys and all Illinois lawyers are required to pay dues to that entity.  All final disciplinary orders are also issued by the Illinois Supreme Court.  The Illinois State Bar Association is a separate voluntary association which engages in trade association activities.

Bottom line: This California law is clearly in response to (and an attempt to overcome) the antitrust issues identified by the U.S. Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.  Will other states follow?  Stay tuned…

…and 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.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Bar regulation and antitrust, California law requiring split of Bar regulation and trade association activities, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, LegalZoom, LegalZoom antitrust, North Carolina Dental Board, North Carolina dental whitening case and UPL

Indiana criminal prosecutor suspended for 4 years for twice eavesdropping on confidential attorney/client conversations

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Indiana Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 4 years for eavesdropping on confidential attorney/client conversations with no automatic reinstatement.  The case is In the Matter of Robert Neary, No. 46S00-1512-DI-705 (Ind. SC), and the November 6, 2017 disciplinary opinion is here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11061701per.pdf

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a two-count disciplinary complaint against the lawyer on December 17, 2015, and later amended the complaint.  The amended complaint charged the lawyer with “professional misconduct in connection with his actions in two criminal cases while serving as the chief deputy prosecutor in LaPorte County (Michigan).”

The first count of the complaint alleged that the prosecutor had surreptitiously watched video feeds of an attorney/client confidential conversation in March 2014 at the Michigan City Police Department.  A defense lawyer had flipped a switch that was supposed to prevent the conversation from being recorded; however, the police controlled the live video and audio.

The lawyer and police detectives watched the conversation from the police station’s “war room.”  During the conversation, the defendant (Taylor) told his lawyer where a gun could be found.  The lawyer advised the police detectives not to recover the weapon; however, they ignored his advice and recovered the weapon.

The chief of police later learned of the recording and told the lawyer that he should provide the information the defendant’s counsel.  The lawyer subsequently provided the information to the defendant’s lawyer and also reported his misconduct to the Indiana Bar authorities.

The second count alleged that the lawyer listened to an attorney/client confidential conversation that was recorded in December 2012 at the Long Beach (Michigan) Police Department.  The defendant (Larkin) had agreed to speak with police with his lawyer present, in exchange for being charged with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.

During an 11-minute break in the questioning, the defendant discussed defense strategy and other confidential matters with his lawyer; however, the recording system was not turned off.  The lawyer viewed the recorded interview that included the attorney/client confidential discussion during the break about a month later.

According to the opinion, “Respondent first viewed the DVD of the interview, including the break discussion, about one month later. Respondent watched the entire break discussion even though the privileged status of that discussion either was, or should have been, immediately apparent to Respondent.  Respondent provided a copy of the DVD, including the break discussion, to Larkin’s counsel but did not mention to counsel that the break discussion had been recorded.”

The Larkin’s lawyer later filed a motion to dismiss the voluntary manslaughter charge alleging prosecutorial misconduct because of the recording of the discussion.  The lawyer’s response, which was sealed, provided the contents of the break discussion and included the written transcript and a DVD.  A judge later unsealed sealed the information.

The opinion noted that both of the cases had led to appeals and stated that the lawyer’s conduct had “fundamentally infringed on privileged attorney-client communications and, at an absolute minimum, has caused significant delays and evidentiary hurdles in the prosecutions of Taylor and Larkin, even assuming they still can be prosecuted at all.”  The court had reviewed the Taylor matter on appeal and described the eavesdropping as “egregious,” “flagrant,” “unconscionable,” “shameful,” “abhorrent” and “reprehensible.”

After a hearing, the hearing officer found that the lawyer had committed the Bar rule violations charged in the amended complaint and recommended a sanction ranging from a four-year suspension to disbarment.  The Indiana Bar Commission recommended disbarment.

According to the opinion: “(i)n many respects, these proceedings have painted an even more alarming picture of Respondent, in that they show Respondent gradually has retreated from his initial self-report to the Commission and has given evasive and inconsistent explanations and statements regarding the war room eavesdropping.  As aptly found by the hearing officer, ‘Respondent’s ever evolving narrative points to a lack of honesty.’”

The opinion further states: “(t)he severity of the misconduct and Respondent’s repeated transgressions certainly lend support to the notion that he should be disbarred. On the other hand, Respondent has no prior discipline, he self-reported his conduct to the Commission, and several persons testified to his good reputation in the community (although, as noted by the hearing officer, these persons did not appear to have been particularly well informed of the circumstances giving rise to these disciplinary proceedings). At the end of the day, these considerations persuade us that the door should not permanently be closed on Respondent’s legal career and that he should be afforded an opportunity at an appropriate juncture to prove by clear and convincing evidence his professional rehabilitation and fitness to resume practicing law.”

Bottom line: This prosecutor was involved in two separate serious violations of attorney/client confidentiality by viewing and listening to surreptitious recordings and clearly should have known better.  In my opinion, the lawyer was extremely fortunate that he avoided disbarment for his misconduct.

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.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, Attorney/client confidentiality, attorney/client privilege, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false statements in response to Bar complaint, Lawyer false testimony, Lawyer sanctions, Prosecutor misconduct discipline, Prosecutor misconduct eavesdropping on attorney/client conversations, Prosecutorial misconduct ethics