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

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According to the opinion, the lawyer had posted multiple excerpts of unpublished and public judicial opinions related to fee applications in employment discrimination cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination on his law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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising judicial opinion excerpts on website, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

Illinois lawyer censured for settling deceased client’s injury case without informing court or opposing counsel of the death

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent censure of an Illinois lawyer for settling a deceased client’s personal injury case without informing court or opposing counsel of the client’s death.  The case is In the Matter of: Anthony Patrick Gilbreth, No. 6289576, Commission No. 2015PR00100 (Ill. SC May 18, 2016).  The summary of the censure is here: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/supremecourt/Announce/2016/051816.pdf.

The lawyer’s law firm filed a lawsuit against Orthotic & Prosthetic Lab (O&P) on behalf of a client in 2008 which alleged that a prosthesis that O&P had designed, manufactured, and sold had failed.  The client subsequently died in January 2013 and, in August 2013, his son was appointed administrator of the estate.  In September 2013, O&P offered to settle the case for $110,000.00.  The lawyer responded and stated that his client had instructed him to accept it.

The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission’s (ARDC) petition for discipline states: “At the time of the settlement, defense counsel was unaware because (the lawyer) had not told him that (the client) had died.” “(The lawyer) withheld the fact of (the client’s) in part because he knew that (the client’s) death would reduce the value of any claim for damages.  (The lawyer) also felt that it would be improper to reveal (the client’s) death because (the lawyer)  thought that information was confidential under Rule 1.6 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and its revelation would harm his former client’s claim. (The lawyer) did research the issue and discussed it with other attorneys in his firm, but did not research ARDC case precedent, discussed infra, in which attorneys have been disciplined for failure to disclose his or her client’s death under similar circumstances.”

According to the petition for discipline, on November 15, 2013, the lawyer sent defense counsel an amended release and informed him that the client had died and that the client’s son had been appointed administrator of the estate.  Defense counsel responded by informing the lawyer that the settlement (which had not yet been paid) was no longer valid. The trial court allowed the client’s son to substitute in as plaintiff on January 21, 2014, and granted the lawyer’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The defendant appealed and the appeals court vacated the trial court’s order enforcing the settlement.

The appeals court found that, since the client had died, there was no plaintiff on the date of the purported agreement to settle the case and also that the lawyer’s arguments for concealing the death of his client to be “specious and incredible.”  The appeals court also stated: “in failing to disclose the fact of the plaintiff’s death, Mr. Gilbreth intentionally concealed a material fact that would have reduced the overall value of the claim for damages.”  The court remanded the case to the trial court and, as of the date the parties filed the joint motion to approve the petition to impose discipline on consent, the case filed on behalf of the client remained pending. The lawyer’s Answer to the disciplinary charges is here:  http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/supremecourt/Announce/2016/051816.pdf.

The petition for discipline stated, in mitigation, that the lawyer had not been disciplined since his 2006 admission to practice.  In addition, five lawyers, a reverend from Columbia, and a judge would testify that the lawyer has a good reputation for truth and veracity, the lawyer was cooperative in the disciplinary proceedings, and was remorseful for his conduct.  In aggravation, the petition stated that the lawyer’s “actions in attempting to enforce the settlement, even after being supplied with controlling precedent, caused the defendant to incur the expenses of an appeal to obtain a ruling that the settlement was invalid.”  The ARDC petition for discipline is here: https://www.iardc.org/rd_database/rulesdecisions.html  (type in lawyer’s name).

Bottom line:  This Illinois disciplinary case illustrates the paramount importance of candor in a lawyer’s representation of a client.  The lawyer believed that the information related to the death of the client was confidential; however, the appellate court decision found that the lawyer’s duty of candor supersedes attorney/client confidentiality.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, deceit, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions

Florida Bar Board of Governors approves Florida Bar advertising rule amendment regarding lawyer’s use of “expert” and “specialist”

Hello and welcome to this update of my May 19, 2016 Ethics Alert regarding the Florida Bar Board of Governors’ final review of the proposed amendment to Florida Bar Rule 4-7.14 related to claims of specialization and expertise in advertisements.  The BOG approved the rule amendment as drafted at its meeting on May 20, 2016 in Palm Beach.  The approved amendment is below with the relevant new language in italics:

RULE 4-7.14 POTENTIALLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS

A lawyer may not engage in potentially misleading advertising. (a) Potentially Misleading Advertisements. Potentially misleading advertisements include, but are not limited to:

(4) a statement that a lawyer is board certified or other variations of those terms unless:

(D) the lawyer’s experience and training demonstrate specialized competence in the advertised area of practice that is reasonably comparable to that demonstrated by the standards of the Florida Certification Plan set forth in chapter 6 of these rules and, if the area of claimed specialization or expertise is or falls within an area of practice under the Florida Certification Plan, the advertisement includes a reasonably prominent disclaimer that the lawyer is not board certified in that area of practice by The Florida Bar or another certification program if the lawyer is not board certified in that area of practice.

Bottom line:  As I previously said, it remains to be seen whether this rule amendment is in compliance with the federal court’s order and the United States Constitution on its face and as applied.  If the Bar reasonably interprets the language that the lawyer’s experience must be “reasonably comparable to that demonstrated by the standards of the Florida Certification Plan set forth in chapter 6 of these rules”, it may be found to be constitutional if challenged.  Another potential constitutional challenge would be that the rule is vague and ambiguous on its face.  The rule amendment must now be reviewed and implemented by the Florida Supreme Court to become effective.  Stay tuned…

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 specialties and certification, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyers use of specialization and expertise ethics

Florida Bar Board of Governors will consider final action on rule amendment regarding use of “expert” and “specialist”

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the upcoming Florida Bar Board of Governors meeting this week in Palm Beach wherein the BOG is scheduled to vote on final action regarding a proposed amendment to Florida Bar Rule 4-7.14 related to claims of specialization and expertise.

The proposed amendment was drafted in response to a Southern District of Florida federal district court judge’s September 30, 2015 Order/injunction which found that the Bar’s prohibition of non-certified lawyers from stating they have expertise or specialize in an area of law unless they were Board certified was unconstitutional as applied and enjoined its enforcement.

The injunction order was not appealed by The Florida Bar and there is currently a Bar moratorium on enforcement of the rule.  The federal case is Searcy et al. v. The Florida Bar et al., case number 4:13-cv-00664 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida).  The federal injunction order is in the federal court’s Pacer system here:  https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04914695967

The BOG will consider final action on the proposed rule amendment at its meeting on May 20, 2016.  The proposed amendment is below (with the new substantive language in italics):

RULE 4-7.14 POTENTIALLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS

A lawyer may not engage in potentially misleading advertising. (a) Potentially Misleading Advertisements. Potentially misleading advertisements include, but are not limited to:

(4) a statement that a lawyer is board certified or other variations of those terms unless:

(D) the lawyer’s experience and training demonstrate specialized competence in the advertised area of practice that is reasonably comparable to that demonstrated by the standards of the Florida Certification Plan set forth in chapter 6 of these rules and, if the area of claimed specialization or expertise is or falls within an area of practice under the Florida Certification Plan, the advertisement includes a reasonably prominent disclaimer that the lawyer is not board certified in that area of practice by The Florida Bar or another certification program if the lawyer is not board certified in that area of practice.

Bottom line:  If the BOG approves the proposed Rule amendment, it remains to be seen whether it will be applied in compliance with the federal court’s order and the U.S. Constitution.  If the amendment is approved and the Bar rationally interprets the language that the lawyer’s experience must be “reasonably comparable to that demonstrated by the standards of the Florida Certification Plan set forth in chapter 6 of these rules”, it will most likely be found to be constitutional if it is challenged.  Another potential challenge would be on the ground that the rule is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous on its face.  Stay tuned…

…and be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under 2013 Florida comprehensive advertising rule revisions, Attorney Ethics, Florida 2013 advertising rules federal lawsuit, Florida 2013 comprehensive lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer advertising specialties and certification, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

ABA Formal Opinion 475 addresses when lawyers from different law firms are permitted to share a referral fee

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent American Bar Association Formal ethics Opinion which addresses when lawyers may share a fee in a referral arrangement.  The opinion is ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 475 and was issued on April 21, 2016.  The formal opinion is here: http://www.abajournal.com/files/FO_474.pdf

Under ABA Model Rule 1.5(3) (and the Bar Rules of most jurisdictions), lawyers may refer cases to lawyers in other firms and receive a fee as long as the referring lawyer performs legal services or assumes joint responsibility for the case. Comment 7 to Model Rule 1.5 explains that these arrangements most often occur between a referring lawyer and a trial lawyer.  ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 474 discusses the propriety of referral fees between lawyers, explains that clients must consent in writing to such arrangements, and provides examples of when a lawyer does and does not have a conflict of interest.

The opinion notes that state rules related to referral fees vary widely.  Some states only require client consent and a total reasonable fee and some states prohibit referral fees altogether.  Other states (including Florida) require that the referring lawyer either perform legal services of assume joint responsibility for the case (which would include potential legal malpractice liability) and limit the amount of the fee without court approval.

The client must consent to the referral arrangement and be fully informed of the agreement regarding the division of fees before or within a reasonable time after the representation begins.  A lawyer cannot be involved in the case (or receive a referral fee) if there is a conflict of interest unless the lawyer obtains a waiver which meets the requirements of ABA Model Rule 1.7(b), which includes the requirement that each affected client give informed consent in writing (if the conflict is waivable).  A lawyer cannot perform legal services or assume responsibility for the case, however, if he or she has a conflict of interest.

The opinion also states that “(t)he agreement must describe in sufficient detail the division of the fee between the lawyers including the share each lawyer will receive.”  In addition, a referral agreement should not be entered into toward the end of the attorney-client relationship but must be disclosed and agreed to by the client “either before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.”

Bottom line:  Lawyers should be aware that, although most jurisdictions (including Florida) permit referral fees, the Bar rules typically impose the requirement that the client provide informed consent in writing to the referral fee and the fee is also subject to limitations in the amount without court approval (25% in Florida without court approval).  In addition, if a lawyer is unable to represent a client outright because of a conflict of interest that is not waived or waivable, the lawyer will not be able to accept a referral fee since, in Florida and most jurisdictions, the referring lawyer must either perform legal services or assume joint responsibility for the matter (which includes potential legal malpractice liability).  Lawyers should consult the Bar Rules in his or her jurisdiction before participating in a referral fee.

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 ABA Formal Ethics Opinion referral fees, ABA Formal Opinion referral fees and conflict of interest, ABA formal opinions, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer improper fees, Lawyer referral fees

New Jersey Supreme Court opinion holds that lawyers accused of improper Facebook access can be charged with ethics violations

 

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Supreme Court of New Jersey opinion which held that lawyers who allegedly engaged in improper conduct related to access of an opposing party’s Facebook page can be charged with disciplinary rule violations.  The disciplinary matter is John J. Robertelli v. The New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (A-62-14) (075584) (New Jersey Supreme Court 4/19/16).  The disciplinary opinion is here: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A6214JohnRobNJ.pdf

According to the opinion, in the underlying matter, the plaintiff sued Bergen County New Jersey related to injuries that he allegedly sustained when a police car struck him in 2007.  The two lawyers represented the plaintiff and:

“(i)n order to obtain information about Hernandez, plaintiffs directed a paralegal employed by the firm to search the internet. Among other sources, she accessed Hernandez’s Facebook page. Initially, the page was open to the public. At a later point, the privacy settings on the account were changed to limit access to Facebook users who were Hernandez’s “friends.” The OAE contends that plaintiffs directed the paralegal to access and continue to monitor the non-public pages of Hernandez’s Facebook account.  She therefore submitted a “friend request” to Hernandez, without revealing that she worked for the law firm representing defendants or that she was investigating him in connection with the lawsuit. Hernandez accepted the friend request, and the paralegal was able to obtain information from the non-public pages of his Facebook account.

The opinion states that the plaintiff learned of the alleged misconduct when the lawyers “sought to add the paralegal as a trial witness and disclosed printouts” from the plaintiff’s Facebook page.  The opinion did not address whether the two lawyers violated any ethics rules or should face sanctions, but whether the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) could prosecute the lawyers for the alleged misconduct after a regional disciplinary committee found that the lawyers’ actions, even if proven, did not constitute unethical conduct and dismissed the matters.

The OAE disagreed with the disciplinary committee and filed a disciplinary complaint with the Supreme Court against the lawyers.  The complaints alleged, inter alia, that the two lawyers communicated with a represented party without consent of the party’s lawyer and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  The two lawyers argued that they acted in good faith and had not committed any unethical conduct. They also stated that they were “unfamiliar with the different privacy settings on Facebook.

The opinion noted the unique nature of this attorney disciplinary matter and stated that it involves a “novel ethical issue” and “no reported case law in our State addresses the sort of conduct alleged.”  The court unanimously held:

“Consistent with the broad authority that the Rules of Court grant the Director and the important goals of the disciplinary process, the Director has authority to review a grievance after a DEC Secretary has declined to docket the grievance. The OAE may therefore proceed to prosecute plaintiffs’ alleged misconduct.”

Bottom line:  Lawyers beware: although this issue has not previously been addressed by the New Jersey Supreme Court (or the Florida Supreme Court), the Florida Bar Rules (and the Bar disciplinary rules of most, if not all jurisdictions, including New Jersey), prohibit a lawyer from communicating with a represented person without the consent of that person’s lawyer.  Florida Bar Rule 4-4.2(a) prohibits lawyers from communicating “about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer.”  The Rule is here:  Florida Bar Rule 4-4.2.  This rule would appear to prohibit a lawyer (or the lawyer’s agent) from accessing an opposing party’s Facebook (or other social media) page by sending a “friend” or other request and obtaining information that has been made private on that person’s settings.

Be careful out there.

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

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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline social media misuse, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misconduct improper Facebook access, Lawyer misconduct improper social media access, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

Missouri Supreme Court suspends lawyer who used payroll document and opposing counsel’s written direct exam questions from e-mails hacked by client

 

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert update blog which will discuss the disciplinary case against a Missouri lawyer who failed to disclose payroll document and direct examination questions of opposing counsel which were obtained by his client/husband by hacking the wife’s e-mail account, used them at a settlement conference, and planned to use them at a trial+.  The disciplinary case is In Re: Joel B. Eisenstein, No. SC95331 (Missouri SC 4/5/16) and the opinion is here: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=99378.  My previous blog on this case is here:  https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/missouri-lawyer-alleged-to-have-used-payroll-document-and-opposing-counsels-written-direct-exam-questions-from-e-mails-hacked-by-client/.

According to the disciplinary opinion, the lawyer was representing the husband in a dissolution matter.  The husband hacked the wife’s e-mail account and obtained her payroll documents and a list of direct examination questions prepared by the wife’s lawyer for the upcoming trial.  The husband gave the lawyer the payroll document in November 2013 and he used the payroll information in the document during a mediation/settlement conference before the trial.

During the trial, the lawyer provided documents to the opposing counsel which included a list of the direct examination questions which the opposing counsel had prepared and sent to her client via e-mail.  The opposing counsel asked the lawyer why he had the list of questions and he told her that there were some leading questions and he planned to object to them.

During a hearing that followed on the issue, the lawyer stated that his paralegal had erroneously included the questions in the stack of exhibits and claimed that he was joking when he made the remark about the leading questions to opposing counsel.  He admitted that he had received the documents from his client and failed to disclose them to opposing counsel.  The lawyer later sent opposing counsel an e-mail stating: “Rumor has it that you are quite the ‘gossip’ regarding our little spat in court. Be careful what you say. I’m not someone you really want to make a lifelong enemy of, even though you are off to a pretty good start. Joel’”.

According to the opinion, the lawyer violated Missouri Bar rules by failing to promptly disclose to opposing counsel that he had received the information/documents from his client and by sending the threatening e-mail to opposing counsel, which was prejudicial to the administration of justice.  According to media reports, the lawyer is 70 years old, and the opinion set out the lawyer’s prior disciplinary record:

Mr. Eisenstein’s license has been disciplined on five prior occasions. In 1991 and again in 1999, Mr. Eisenstein was admonished for violating Rule 4-3.5(b) by engaging in ex parte communications with the judge. In 1997, this Court suspended Mr. Eisenstein after he  pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor for willfully failing to file an income tax return. In 2001, Mr. Eisenstein was admonished for violating Rule 4-8.1(b) by failing to respond to the OCDC’s request for information regarding an ethics complaint. Finally, in 2004, Mr. Eisenstein was admonished for violating Rule 4-3.3(d) for failing to inform the court of material facts relevant to a pending issue.

The opinion of the majority suspended the lawyer indefinitely and for a minimum of 6 months with reinstatement conditioned upon the lawyer meeting the requirements for readmission.  Two justices dissented and said that the lawyer should be suspended indefinitely and for a minimum of 12 months.  The dissenting opinion stated it was inappropriate for the lawyer to solicit the bar and judiciary to influence the state supreme court in the case and “(o)ne of these solicitations took the form of an e-mail titled ‘I’m too old for this xxxx!!’ (Expletive deleted.)” The e-mail from the lawyer included what he claimed was a “complete history” of the case which the dissent stated “varies greatly from the facts” found by the disciplinary hearing panel.

Bottom line:   As I stated in my earlier blog, this was very serious misconduct and the opinion makes it clear that the lawyer knew that the documents were obtained without the wife’s permission and did not advise opposing counsel.  Compounding the misconduct, the lawyer used the improperly obtained payroll document to his advantage  at a mediation/settlement conference and may also have been planning to use the direct examination questions to his advantage without opposing counsel’s knowledge until the paralegal included the document with the copies of exhibits by mistake.  The lawyer also sent an e-mail threatening the opposing attorney if she pursued the matter and tried to improperly influence the court.   The sanction may have been more severe in a different jurisdiction.

Be careful out there…and of course, do not do this.

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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, deceit, 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 sanctions, Lawyer threats and discipline

Oklahoma Supreme Court publicly censures lawyer who had been permanently suspended by bankruptcy court for disobeying order

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss recent Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion censuring a lawyer who had been permanently suspended from practicing before the bankruptcy court for disobeying a bankruptcy judge’s order.  The case is State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Oliver, case number Case Number: SCBD-6268 (Oklahoma Supreme Court, March 29, 2016).  The disciplinary opinion is here:  http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=477506

According to the opinion, the lawyer was suspended for 30 days by a bankruptcy judge in the Western District of Oklahoma on October 29, 2014, he was reinstated on December 1, 2014, and he was suspended again for 60 days on January 14, 2015.

In a show cause hearing on May 6, 2015, the bankruptcy judge told the lawyer that he had errors in nine documents that she had assigned for him to complete and required that he show cause as to why he should not be permanently suspended from practicing in that court. The lawyer stated that he had an attorney friend who would be willing to assist him with his filings.  The judge told the lawyer that he had 30 days to have a bankruptcy attorney who was well-versed in the local bankruptcy rules and guidelines to assist him and file a document confirming that attorney’s assistance. The judge also required the lawyer to resubmit the documents without any substantive or typographical errors.

The judge issued an order on May 7, 2015 confirming her instructions at the show cause hearing. The lawyer was required to refile the nine documents and, “(i)n doing so, (the lawyer) may not seek or obtain assistance from this Court’s law clerk, the staff of the Court Clerk’s office or any other person.”  The order also confirmed that the lawyer was required to file a document under oath from a bankruptcy attorney who was “well versed in the Local Rules and Guidelines of the court and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure” and agreeing to assist in the preparation and filing of documents with the court.

On June 15, 2015, the judge permanently suspended the lawyer from practicing in the court after concluding that he had disobeyed her order by contacting a bankruptcy attorney who was admitted in that court and paying him $1,000.00 to prepare and provide the nine documents that she had required in the show cause order.

The bankruptcy attorney testified at the disciplinary hearing that the lawyer had only asked him to review the nine documents that he had already completed and that the $1,000.00 was for the attorney to continue to help the lawyer in his bankruptcy practice. The attorney submitted the agreement which stated that part of the $1,000.00 was to be credited to future months, and provided the amounts of future payment.  He also testified that he had contacted the clerk to obtain guidance on the court’s requirements and he not been asked to prepare the documents for the lawyer nor had he written them.  The opinion stated that the evidence did not support any discipline related to that issue.

The Bar trial panel recommended that the lawyer be publicly reprimanded for failing to provide notice to the Oklahoma Bar regarding his bankruptcy court suspensions. The panel also found that the lawyer did not deliberately conceal his suspensions and that he had admitted that his oversight resulted from his ignorance of the rule.  The lawyer had notified his clients of the January 14, 2015 sixty day suspension on April 21, 2015 and he admitted that he should have provided more timely notice of his suspensions to his clients.

The Bar prosecutor’s office recommended that the lawyer’s discipline be in the range of a public censure to a 6 month suspension.  After hearing the mitigating evidence and the witnesses, the trial panel recommended that the lawyer receive a public censure and found that “(t)here is no evidence of a deliberate effort at concealment.”  The panel also noted that the lawyer continued to attend bankruptcy CLE seminars even though he was no longer required to attend them.

The disciplinary opinion stated that the lawyer acknowledged his lack of expertise in computer skills and his frustration in trying to meet the federal court’s expectations in filing electronic pleadings and that he also admitted that he had failed to report his suspensions to the Oklahoma Bar and that he did not timely notify his clients of the suspensions.  The lawyer received a public censure; however, two justices dissented and stated that they would suspend the attorney for two years plus one day.

Bottom line:  This is an unusual case.  The lawyer was permanently suspended by a bankruptcy judge from practicing in (after being suspended on two previous occasions) and then failed to report his suspensions to the general counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association and failed to “timely” notify his bankruptcy clients of the suspensions; however, he received only a public censure of his license to practice in Oklahoma.  This is an example of how discipline imposed by a federal bankruptcy court (or other federal or administrative court) does not automatically result in the same discipline by the state court, unlike state court discipline, which typically results in reciprocal discipline of the lawyer’s license to practice in other states.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer disobeying order of tribunal, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer failure to notify clients of suspension, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer technology competence, yer disobey order of tribunal