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According to the opinion, the lawyer had posted multiple excerpts of unpublished and public judicial opinions related to fee applications in employment discrimination cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination on his law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

Ethical issues and requirements for lawyers in compensating nonlawyer employees

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the ethical considerations for lawyers when compensating non-lawyer employees.  State Bar disciplinary rules, including Florida Bar Rule 4-5.4(a), prohibit lawyers from sharing legal fees with nonlawyers.  The Comment to the Florida Bar Rule states, “The provisions of this rule express traditional limitations on sharing fees.  These limitations are to protect the lawyer’s professional independence of judgment….”  Notwithstanding this prohibition, the Bar rules provide for exceptions.

Florida Bar Rule 4-5.4(a)(4) states that “bonuses may be paid to nonlawyer employees for work performed, and may be based on their extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specified time period. Bonus payments shall not be based on cases or clients brought to the lawyer or law firm by the actions of the nonlawyer. A lawyer shall not provide a bonus payment that is calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer or law firm…”

In Florida Bar Ethics Op. 02-1 (1/11/02), the lawyer requested an ethics opinion regarding the following question:  “May I bonus a non-lawyer employee based on the number of hours the non-lawyer employee has worked on a case for a particular client?”  The lawyer stated that “I would like to bonus my employees based on their own productivity. I would not be utilizing any portion of the fees received by me for that purpose.”

The opinion concluded:

“Based on the rules and opinion, the inquiring attorney may pay the legal assistant a bonus based on the legal assistant’s extraordinary efforts on a particular case or over a specific period of time. While the number of hours the legal assistant works on a particular case or over a specific period of time is one of several factors that can be considered in determining a bonus for the legal assistant, it is not the sole factor to be considered. It must be remembered that the rule allows a bonus to be paid to a nonlawyer based on “extraordinary efforts” either in a particular case or over a specific time period. A bonus which is solely calculated on the number of hours incurred by the legal assistant on the matter is tantamount to a finding that every single hour incurred was an “extraordinary effort”, and such a finding is very unlikely to be true. Therefore, unless every single hour incurred by the legal assistant was a truly extraordinary effort, it would be impermissible for the inquiring attorney to pay a bonus to his legal assistant calculated in the manner the inquiring attorney has proposed. However, the number of hours incurred by the legal assistant on the particular matter or over a specified time period may be considered by the lawyer as one of the factors in determining the legal assistant’s bonus.” (emphasis added). 

Florida Bar Rule 4-5.4 (b) – Qualified Pension Plans, states that a “lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a qualified pension, profit-sharing, or retirement plan, even though the lawyer’s or law firm’s contribution to the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement.”

ABA Model Rule 5.4(a)(3) states that: “A lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit sharing arrangement…”  ABA Informal Opinion 1440 also states that a compensation plan proposed for an office administrator which relates to the net profits and business performance of the firm and not to the receipt of particular fees does not violate the model rules.

Other state bar opinions address when nonlawyers can participate in such compensation plans.  New York State Bar Assoc. Ethics Op. 887 (2011) states that a law firm may pay a marketing employee a bonus based on the firm’s profits, the profits of a department, or as a percentage of the marketer’s salary; however, the bonus cannot be based on referrals of specific legal matters or on firm profits that come from cases that the marketer brought to the firm.  District of Columbia Ethics Op. 322 (2004) states that a nonlawyer employee may not be paid a bonus based on fees the firm receives from a specific case or series of related cases, but may be paid a bonus contingent upon the firm’s overall profitability.

Unless there is an exception, lawyers are prohibited from paying nonlawyers a bonus that is based on the referral of specific clients to the firm.  Florida Bar Rule 4-1.17(b) -Payment for Referrals- states that a lawyer “may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may pay the reasonable cost of advertising permitted by these rules, may pay the usual charges of a lawyer referral service, lawyer directory or other legal service organization, and may purchase a law practice in accordance with rule 4-1.17.”

A lawyer cannot circumvent the Rule by providing non-monetary “gifts” to nonlawyer employees.  Such gifts would most likely be considered to be something “of value” under Florida Bar Rule 4-1.17(b) and would therefore by prohibited under that rule as well. The key issue is whether something “of value” is exchanged for future referrals.

Examples include: Maryland Ethics Op. 2000-35 (2001)- lawyers who participate as panelists in seminars offered by accounting and financial services company, in exchange for referrals, could be interpreted as giving “something of value” to accounting firm; Pennsylvania Bar Association in Op. 2005-81- a lawyer may not give a nonlawyer employee a paid day off for referring a new client to the firm; and Connecticut Informal Ethics Op. 92-24 (1992)- a lawyer may not give indirect benefits, including gifts, to a client who made referrals to a lawyer.

Bottom line:  Lawyers must be aware of the Bar rules governing compensation to non-lawyers in order to fully comply with the rules and avoid an unintentional failure to comply.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Ethics and nonlawyer compensation, Florida lawyer ethics nonlawyer compensation, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Non lawyer compensation

Georgia Supreme Court rejects lawyer’s agreement for reprimand for threatening and improper e-mails in his divorce case

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court rejecting an agreement between a lawyer and the Georgia Bar for a reprimand as a sanction for the lawyer’s “inappropriate threatening language, intimidation and personal attacks directed to opposing counsel” during his divorce case. The case is In the Matter of John Michael Spain, No. S17Y0010 (February 27, 2017) and the Court’s opinion is here:  http://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/s17y0010.pdf

The lawyer, who was admitted in Georgia in 1999, sent the e-mails over a period of two days while he was representing himself in his divorce matter.  He pled no contest to misdemeanor charges of stalking and harassing communications related to the e-mails and was sentenced to one year of probation on each count to be served consecutively.

In the agreement with the Georgia Bar, the lawyer admitted that the e-mails included “inappropriate threatening language, intimidation and personal attacks directed to opposing counsel, including inappropriate remarks about counsel and members of her family, and ad hominem statements about his wife.”

The lawyer cited as mitigating factors that he had no prior discipline and that he was suffering from his personal and emotional problems related to the marriage and stated that he has received professional help for his problems and he has retained a lawyer to represent him in the divorce.  He also stated that acted in good faith to rectify the consequences of his conduct by entering the pleas, that he has cooperated fully with the Bar, that his misconduct did not involve his practice or his clients, that he was deeply remorseful and recognized that his conduct was contrary to his professional obligations and longstanding personal values, and that he wished that he could reverse his actions.

The Georgia Bar agreed to the reprimand under the “unique set of circumstances’; however, after reviewing the record and relevant cases, and analyzing the facts, the opinion rejected the petition for voluntary discipline for a reprimand.

Bottom line:  This case involves some allegedly egregious conduct by a lawyer who was representing himself in his own divorce proceeding.  A lawyer is responsible for his or her actions, even if the conduct occurs outside of the representation of a client if they result in violations of the Bar Rules.  This also appears to clearly demonstrate the application of the old proverb, commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln (although likely much older), that: “A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client”.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer disparaging statements to opposing counsel in own divorce, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer threatening e-mails, Lawyer threats and discipline

Florida judge suspended for six months for judicial campaign violations and Bar Rule violations while he was a practicing lawyer

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent opinion of the Florida Supreme Court reprimanding and suspending a judge for six (6) months for violating the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons related to judicial candidates and the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar while he was a practicing lawyer for, inter alia, making improper and false statements as a candidate, and failing to withdraw from a lawsuit where he had a conflict of interest.  The case is Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 13-25 Re: Andrew J. Decker, III, No. SC14-383 (March 2, 2017) and the Court’s opinion is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2014/383/2014-383_disposition_138059.pdf

The investigation into the alleged misconduct began before the judge was elected as a Third Judicial Circuit judge in 2012.  The judge was alleged to have had a conflict of interest while he was representing clients as a lawyer and of, among other things, falsely stating that he had never been accused of conflict of interest and stating that he was “pro-life” and Republican at campaign events before his election in 2012.  The judge maintained that his comments regarding his party and his views regarding abortion were “political speech” protected by the First Amendment.

The judge was also named in an inquiry by a Florida House committee regarding the time it takes to investigate and resolve allegations against judges.  Former Duval Circuit Judge Mark Hulsey was also named; however, he resigned the day before the committee began the inquiry.

In March 2015, after an investigation, the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) recommended a 90-day suspension without pay; however, the opinion rejected that recommendation and imposed a six (6) month suspension, reprimand, and required payment of the JQC’s costs.

According to the opinion:  “All the violations established in this case demonstrate a pattern of poor judgment, and lack of concern for jointly represented clients and for other counsel and their clients.”  “Judge Decker’s misconduct unquestionably warrants the imposition of a serious sanction.”  The opinion also indicated that the judge’s misconduct did not result in any harm to his clients or anyone else and: “Although the series of acts by Judge Decker involving misconduct requires the imposition of a serious sanction, we have concluded it does not merit removal from office.”

Bottom line:  This case is interesting since all judicial candidates and judges are subject to investigation by the JQC  for alleged violations of the Judicial Canons for alleged misconduct while they are candidates or while they are on the bench.  They also can (and have been) prosecuted by The Florida Bar for misconduct before they are sworn in as a judge.  In this case, the Court suspended the judge for conduct both as a practicing lawyer and as a judicial candidate; however, The Florida Bar will have jurisdiction to prosecute the judge for Florida Bar Rule violations after he is no longer a judge.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida Judge candidate misconduct, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judicial candidate misconduct, Judicial ethics

California Bar files disciplinary charges against former Los Angeles City Attorney alleging prosecutorial misconduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recently filed disciplinary charges filed by the California Bar against former a Los Angeles City Attorney alleging prosecutorial misconduct during a death penalty case that he handled when he was a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney more than 30 years ago.  The case is State Bar of California v. Carmen Anthony Trutanich, Case No. 16-O-12803 (filed February 9, 2017) and is here:  http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/16-O-12803.pdf

The lawyer served as the elected Los Angeles City Attorney from 2009-2013.  He was a deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County prior to that time and, while he was a deputy district attorney, he is alleged to have failed to provide exculpatory information in responding to discovery by withholding the true name and address of a witness from the defendant in the People v. Barry Glenn Williams.  He is also alleged to have failed to correct a police detective’s false testimony regarding the detective’s investigation in 1985 and a murder witness’ false testimony regarding the name a person who was driving a vehicle during a crime in 1986.

A federal judge cited prosecutorial misconduct in overturning the defendant’s murder conviction and death sentence in 2016, which resulted in a review by the California State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel.  The California Bar is notified when a criminal conviction is reversed because of alleged attorney misconduct.

The lawyer will have an opportunity to respond to the charges, which must be proven by the California Bar and approved by the California Supreme Court before any discipline can be imposed.

Bottom line: This lawyer will be defending very serious allegations that allegedly occurred over 3 decades ago.   As you may already know, criminal prosecutors are held to higher ethics standards and have special responsibilities to seek justice and disclose exculpatory information.  If these allegations are true, this prosecutor not only failed to provide exculpatory information, but also actively participated in providing false information and testimony in the case.  Stay tuned…

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Prosecutor misconduct discipline, Prosecutorial misconduct ethics

Virginia Ethics Opinion examines duties of partners and supervisory lawyers when firm lawyer is significantly impaired

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Virginia Ethics Opinion which examines two hypothetical situations involving impaired lawyers, one where the lawyer may be abusing alcohol and the other where the lawyer may be suffering from age related dementia.  The first scenario is important since studies have shown that lawyers disproportionately suffer from alcohol and controlled substance addiction and abuse and the second scenario is certainly becoming much more important as many (i.e. baby boomer etc.) practicing lawyers become older.  The opinion is Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 1886, which is here:  https://www.vacle.org/opinions/1886.htm

In the first scenario, a managing partner in a law firm learns from credible sources that a senior associate had a serious substance abuse problem and had been appearing in court drunk and smelling of alcohol.  The managing partner also observed that the associate exhibited what are considered to be traditional signs of an abuse problem.  When confronted, the associate denied that he has any problem.

The opinion addresses whether the managing partner is required to report the associate’s suspected abuse problem and concludes that the partner may not be required to report the associate if he or she has promptly taken reasonable steps to ensure that the associate does not engage in any future conduct that breaches any duties owed to the firm’s clients.

“The law firm may be able to work around or accommodate some impairment situations.  For example, the firm might be able to reduce the impaired lawyer’s workload, require supervision or monitoring, or remove the lawyer from time-sensitive projects…(t)he impaired lawyer’s role might be restricted solely to giving advice to and drafting legal documents only for other lawyers in the firm who in turn can evaluate whether the impaired lawyer’s work product can be used in furtherance of a client’s interests.”

According to the opinion, “if reasonable measures or precautions have been taken by (the managing partner) and any other lawyers in the firm to ensure that the impaired lawyer complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct, neither the partners or supervisory lawyers in the firm are ethically responsible for the impaired lawyer’s professional misconduct, unless they knew of the conduct at a time when its consequences could have been avoided or mitigated and failed to take reasonable remedial action.”

In the second hypothetical, a lawyer suspected that her 60-year-old law firm partner (who is prominent in his area of practice) was suffering from age-related dementia. The lawyer had seen and heard about some erratic behavior by the partner; however, she does not want to report the partner and risk ruining his reputation, unless it is required by the Bar Rules.

The opinion states that, unless there is professional misconduct of which the lawyer is aware, she (or he) is not required to report the partner; however, she would be required to make reasonable efforts to prevent him from violating his ethical obligations to the clients or violating Bar Rules. This would include an initial conversation with the partner about his condition and attempting to persuade him to seek an evaluation and treatment, if necessary.

Bottom line: this opinion makes it clear that law firms should be aware of these issues and implement and enforce policies that require impaired lawyers to seek assistance and also require supervisory (and other) lawyers to take appropriate steps to protect the clients’ interests, such as removing an impaired lawyer from a case or supervising him or her and requiring professional assistance and address the problem. If those policies are in place (and the lawyer has not observed or become aware of Bar violations), the lawyer would not necessarily be required to report the impaired lawyer to the Bar.

Be careful out there.

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Ethical duties impaired lawyers, Ethics opinion impaired lawyer, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Virginia Lawyer Ethics Opinion impaired lawyer

ABA approves Model Rule revision requiring 1 hour of both substance abuse/mental health and diversity/inclusion CLE

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent vote by the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates to approve a revision to the ABA Model Rule for Minimum Continuing Legal Education to require one (1) hour of substance abuse and mental health CLE every three years, and one (1) hour of diversity and inclusion CLE every 3 years.

At the ABA’s recent meeting in Miami, the House of Delegates approved changes to the Model Rule for Minimum Continuing Legal Education requiring one hour of substance abuse and mental health CLE every three years, along with mandatory diversity and inclusion CLE. The decision to approve the revision was unanimous and there was no debate.

The rule revisions were sponsored by the ABA’s Standing Committee on Continuing Legal Education and its Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs and resulted from a multiyear review of the continuing legal education model rule by special committee. The Model Rule had not been updated since 1988.

The revisions were approved about one year after a study by the ABA’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs and the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation concluded that lawyers suffer substance abuse and mental health problems at higher rates than other professions/industries. The study found that 21 percent of licensed lawyers qualify as problem drinkers; 19 percent have symptoms of anxiety; and 28 percent show signs of depression. The study also found that lawyers in their first decade of practice were more likely to face these issues.

According to media reports, administrators of lawyer assistance programs across the country endorsed the mandatory requirement and stated that it will remove the stigma lawyers might face for voluntarily attending mental health and substance abuse sessions.  There was apparently a concern that lawyers who attend such CLEs will be assumed to be struggling with the issues; however, if it is mandatory, no one will make that assumption.

The revised Model Rule also requires one hour of diversity and inclusion CLE every three years which may include information about implicit bias or how to improve diversity in the legal profession.

The revised Model Rule is advisory only and each jurisdiction has its own CLE requirements.  Currently, most jurisdictions do not require lawyers to obtain CLE credits for programs specifically related mental health and substance abuse. Three states currently require attorneys to complete specific diversity and inclusion programs.

Florida currently requires 33 credit hours of CLE every 3 years and 5 of the 33 credit hours must be in legal ethics, professionalism, bias elimination, substance abuse, or mental illness awareness programs.  3 of the 33 credit hours must be in approved technology programs.  These hours are included in, not in addition to, the regular 33 credit hour requirement. Excess CLE credits cannot be carried over to the next reporting cycle.

Bottom line: The revised ABA Model Rule requiring 1 hour of substance abuse and mental health and one (1) hour of diversity and inclusion CLE every 3 years does not apply unless a jurisdiction adopts it in its CLE rules.  Each lawyer should consult the CLE rules in his or her own jurisdiction.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under 2017 ABA Model Rules required CLE for substance abuse and diversity and inclusion, ABA lawyer required CLE substance abuse and diversity, Attorney Ethics, Florida 2017 increase in CLE hour requirments, Florida lawyer 2017 technology CLE requirments, Florida lawyer CLE technology competence, Florida lawyer continuing legal education technology and increase in hours, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism