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According to the opinion, the lawyer had posted multiple excerpts of unpublished and public judicial opinions related to fee applications in employment discrimination cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination on his law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

California Ethics Opinion addresses ethics issues related to lawyer blogging and advertising and provides guidelines

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent California Formal Ethics Opinion which addresses ethics issues related to lawyer blogging and advertising and provides guidelines for lawyers who blog.  The Opinion is The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2016-196 and the ethics opinion is here: Cal. Formal Opinion No. 2016-196

The opinion reviews the application of advertising rules to attorney blogging and when blogging by an attorney considered a “communication” under the California Bar Rules and the provisions of California Business and Professions Code which regulate attorney advertising.  The California rules prohibit false or deceptive “communications” which confuse, deceive or mislead the public (as do most, if not all Bar rules throughout the U.S.)  This proscription applies to both affirmative statements and/or to omissions necessary to make a statement not misleading.

The opinion discusses U.S. Constitution First Amendment principles, including the fact that lawyer advertising is protected commercial speech, and truthful lawyer advertising cannot be absolutely prohibited; however, it can be subject to reasonable regulation and restrictions.  In addition, communications for publication by lawyers that are primarily informational and educational have long been considered to be core political speech and protected under the First Amendment, and such speech can be restricted only under extraordinary circumstances.

The First Amendment protections apply even if the lawyer also hopes, as a partial motive, to use the informational and educational communications to increase his or her legal business; however, commercial motivation is only one factor to be considered.  The key questions are whether a blog is a message or offer (1) made by or on behalf of a California attorney; (2) concerns the attorney’s availability for professional employment; and; (3) is directed to a former, present or prospective client.  Since all blogs will meet factors 1 and 3, the important question is whether the blog concerns the attorney’s availability for professional employment under question 2.

The opinion discusses Cal. Formal Opinion 2012-186, which analyzes the application of California advertising rules to attorney social media posts, and found that a post which has words of offer or invitation relating to representation is a “communication’; however, if a post is only informational in nature, it is not a communication. The opinion concluded that this same analysis applies to lawyer blogs.

The opinion also discusses Cal. Formal Opinion 2001-155, which found that, even without specific words of invitation or offer, a website that included information such as a detailed listing of services, qualifications, backgrounds, and other attributes of the attorney or law firm, with their distribution to the public, could carry a “clear implication” of availability for employment, and would therefore be a “communication” subject to advertising  regulation. The opinion concluded that the same analysis applies to lawyer blogs.

The opinion states that a listing of all of an attorney’s cases and outcomes, without comment, could be considered informational and not a “communication”; however, a communication with the result of a specific case or cases without providing information related to the facts and/or law giving rise to the result, would be presumed to be false, misleading or deceptive, and could be a prohibited “guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the result of representation.” The opinion stated that even a numbered listing of “wins” might be misleading without clarification about what is considered a “win.”  The use of disclaimers may (but will not necessarily) overcome a presumption of violation.

Bottom line:  Lawyer blogging has become a very popular and somewhat ubiquitous form of legal communication and is often recommended to lawyers as a business strategy.  This recent California Bar ethics opinion provides solid guidance to lawyers who are blogging or plan to blog to attempt to insure compliance with the Bar rules, regardless of whether the lawyer is in California or another state.  If a lawyer blogs, each blog should primarily informational and educational to potentially avoid the application of Bar advertising rules (like this one).

Be careful out there.

 

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under ABA formal opinions, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer advertising past results, Lawyer advertising promising results, Lawyer advertising rules, lawyer blogs, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer ethics opinions blogs and advertising, Lawyers and social media

Florida Bar Board of Governors agrees with BOG Ethics and Bar Advertising Committees that “Results So Good, You’ll Think It’s Magic!” violates Bar Rules

Hello everyone and welcome to my first Ethics Alert of 2017 which will discuss the recent decision of the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) to uphold the opinion of the Bar’s Standing Committee on Advertising (SCA) and the recommendation of the BOG Ethics Committee (BRCPE) that a law firm’s “Results So Good, You’ll Think It’s Magic!” slogan violates the Bar Rules.

According to an article in the January 1, 2017 issue of The Florida Bar News, the SCA had opined that the law firm’s proposed name: “Ticket Wizards”, and a slogan: “Results So Good, You’ll Think It’s Magic!” violated two Florida Bar advertising rules: 1) promising results to potential clients; and 2) characterizing the “skills, experience, reputation, or record” of the firm in a way that the firm could not objectively verify.

After the SCA found against the law firm, it appealed to the BOG.  The BOG considered the matter at its recent meeting in Clearwater and, by a 24-20 vote agreed with the BRCPE and denied the appeal; however, it found the name and the picture of a wizard did not characterize the firm’s experience, skills, reputation, or record.  The BRCPE had recommended that the firm should only be permitted to use the name and image if it could objectively show it is a “master or expert” in that area of practice.  The BOG voted that the law firm could use the name and image if it could objectively verify the implications of the title and picture.

With regard to the slogan “Results So Good, You’ll Think It’s Magic!,” the BOG agreed that the slogan can “reasonably be construed as a prediction of success” and, therefore, it violated the Bar rules. The BOG also found that the slogan violated the rule against characterizing a firm’s “skills, reputation, character, or record “unless it is objectively verifiable.

Bottom line: It appears that the lesson here is that lawyers are prohibited from promising magical results (unless perhaps they are magicians?)…

Happy New Year to you and yours 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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida 2013 comprehensive lawyer advertising rules, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising and solicitation, Lawyer advertising promising results, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer puffery

ABA Ethics Opinion provides guidance regarding client confidentiality when lawyer withdraws from representation for failure to pay fees

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent ABA Formal Ethics Opinion which provides guidance regarding client confidentiality when a lawyer withdraws from representation.  The opinion is ABA Formal Opinion 476 (12/19/16) and is online here: ABA Opinion 476.

Model Bar Rule 1.16 related to withdrawal from representation

The ABA opinion discusses Model Rule 1.16, which is substantially similar to the Florida Bar Rule 4-1.16 and other state Bar rules.   According to the opinion, “Model Rule 1.16 addresses a lawyer’s duties and responsibilities when withdrawing from the representation of a client. Rule 1.16(a) sets forth the circumstances when a lawyer is required to withdraw, and Rule 1.16(b) describes the circumstances when a lawyer may be permitted to withdraw from a representation.  Among the permissive reasons, Rule 1.16(b)(5) provides that a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client when “the client substantially fails to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.”

“Comment [8] to (Model Rule 1.16) states:  ‘A lawyer may withdraw if the client refuses to abide by the terms of an agreement relating to the representation, such as an agreement concerning fees or court costs . . . .’ In addition, Rule 1.16(b)(6) provides that a lawyer may withdraw where ‘the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client.’  As the courts have decided in the cases cited below, if a client fails over time to pay a lawyer’s fees, and that failure continues after a lawyer provides a reasonable warning to the client, the lawyer may be permitted to withdraw.  In effectuating a withdrawal, a lawyer should do so in a manner that minimizes any prejudice to the client.”

Model Bar Rule 1.16 related to the lawyer’s duty to maintain confidentiality 

“Neither Rule 1.6(b) nor the Comments expressly refer to motions to withdraw for unpaid fees. The Comments do, however, recognize that some disclosure of confidential client information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6(a) is permitted in fee-collection suits by lawyers, based on the “claim or defense” exception in Rule 1.6(b)(5).  Similarly, motions to withdraw based on a client’s failure to pay fees are generally grounded in the same basic right of a lawyer to be paid pursuant to the terms of a fee agreement with a client. Nonetheless, courts have differed widely as to whether any specific information regarding a lawyer’s reasons for seeking withdrawal is required in a motion to withdraw, and if so, how much.”

Limiting any required disclosures of confidential information to mitigate harm/prejudice to clients 

The opinion also discusses the requirements to limit disclosures to mitigate harm/prejudice to the client.  “Comment [16] to Rule 1.6 provides that disclosures under Rule 1.6(b) are permitted only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to accomplish the purpose specified.  Of course, where practicable, a lawyer should first seek to persuade the client to take suitable action to remove the need for the lawyer’s disclosure. When such persuasion is not practicable or successful, and disclosure of some confidential information is required, ‘If the disclosure will be made in connection with a judicial proceeding, the disclosure should be made in a manner that limits access to the information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it and appropriate protective orders or other arrangements should be sought by the lawyer to the fullest extent practicable.’   Thus, Comment [16] anticipates the use of in camera submissions for disclosures where any of Rule 1.6(b)’s exceptions may apply. The situation is similar to discovery disputes over claims of privilege, whereby competing claims are often resolved by a court’s review in camera of the documents at issue and such procedures can help reconcile the competing issues involved in ruling on motions to withdraw as well.

The opinion’s final summary paragraph states:  “In moving to withdraw as counsel in a civil proceeding based on a client’s failure to pay fees, a lawyer must consider the duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6 and seek to reconcile that duty with the court’s need for sufficient information upon which to rule on the motion. Similarly, in entertaining such a motion, a judge should consider the right of the movant’s client to confidentiality. This requires cooperation between lawyers and judges. If required by the court to support the motion with facts relating to the representation, a lawyer may, pursuant to Rule 1.6(b)(5), disclose only such confidential information as is reasonably necessary for the court to make an informed decision on the motion.”

Bottom line:  All lawyers must be aware of the ethics rules, issues, and requirements surrounding client confidentiality when a lawyer is withdrawing from representation due to the client’s failure to pay the fee and this opinion provides a good overview.  The fact that the client has failed to pay is confidential in itself and the lawyer should not include any client confidential information in the motion to withdraw and should only provide the information to the court if necessary or if ordered to do so by the judge.  If the court orders the lawyer to provide confidential information, the lawyer should consider an in camera appearance before the judge with the client and excluding the opposing counsel to preserve confidentiality, if plausible.

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 ABA Ethics Opinion provides guidance regarding client confidentiality when lawyer withdraws from representation, ABA Ethics Opinion provides guidance regarding client confidentiality when lawyer withdraws from representation for failure to pay fees, ABA formal opinions, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege

ABA Ethics Opinion provides ethics requirements when lawyer receives an earned fee in which another lawyer has an interest

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent ABA Formal Ethics Opinion which addresses the ethical requirements when a lawyer receives an earned fee that is subject to a fee sharing arrangement and both lawyers have an interest in the fee.  The opinion is ABA Formal Opinion 475 (December 7, 2016) and is online here: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba_formal_opinion_475.authcheckdam.pdf.  The opinion discusses the ABA Model Rules which apply when lawyers agree to properly share a fee and one lawyer receives the earned fee.

According to the ABA opinion, “Model Rule 1.5(e) provides for the division of fees between lawyers who are not in the same firm.  A division of a fee “is a single billing to a client covering the fee of two or more lawyers who are not in the same firm.”  Rule 1.5(e) provides that such agreements are permissible only if the division is proportionate to the services performed by each lawyer or both lawyers assume joint responsibility for the representation, the client agrees to the arrangement including the share each lawyer ‘will receive, the arrangement is confirmed in writing, and the total fee is reasonable. Model Rule 1.15(a) provides in pertinent part that a lawyer shall hold property of…third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property.’”

The opinion states that “(t)he receiving lawyer…must, under Rule 1.15(a), deposit the funds in which co-counsel holds an interest in an account (typically a trust account) separate from the lawyer’s own property. Rule 1.15(d) requires the lawyer who receives the earned fees subject to a division agreement to promptly notify the other lawyer who holds an interest in the fee of receipt of the funds, promptly deliver to the other lawyer the agreed upon portion of the fee, and, if requested by the other lawyer, provide a full accounting.”

“Finally, if there is any dispute as to the interest of the receiving lawyer and the lawyer with whom the receiving lawyer is dividing a fee, Rule 1.15(e) requires that the receiving lawyer keep the disputed funds separate from the lawyer’s own property until the dispute is resolved.”

Bottom line:  “A lawyer may divide a fee with another lawyer who is not in the same firm if the arrangement meets the requirements of Model Rule 1.5(e). When one lawyer receives an earned fee that is subject to such an arrangement and both lawyers have an interest in that earned fee, Model Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) require that the receiving lawyer hold the funds in an account separate from the lawyer’s own property, appropriately safeguard the funds, promptly notify the other lawyer who holds an interest in the fee of receipt of the funds, promptly deliver to the other lawyer the agreed upon portion of the fee, and, if requested by the other lawyer, provide a full accounting”.  (Most states, including Florida, the same or substantially similar rules).

Lawyers must be aware that, according to this recent ABA opinion (which is not binding), when there is a fee sharing arrangement (referral or co-counsel fee), and the lawyer receives funds to which another lawyer has an interest, the receiving lawyer must hold the funds in a separate account, safeguard the funds, promptly notify the other lawyer, and provide an accounting if requested by the other lawyer.

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 ABA Formal Ethics Opinion referral fees, ABA formal opinions, ABA opinion lawyer who receives earned fee when another lawyer has an interest- referral and co-counsel, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer fee agreements, lawyer fee splitting, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer trust accounts

Arizona lawyer disbarred upon consent for disparaging book about his client Jodi Arias which violated client confidentiality

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent disbarment of an Arizona lawyer who represented notorious murder defendant Jodi Arias and published a book with disparaging details about the representation and revealing attorney/client confidential information without the consent of the client.  The case is In the Matter of Laurence K. Nurmi, Case No. PDJ-2016-9115.

The lawyer began representing Jodi Arias as an assistant public defender.  She was charged in the lurid and violent murder of her boyfriend in Arizona in 2008 and was found guilty of first degree murder in May 2013; however, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on whether to sentence her to death.

Another sentencing hearing was held in the fall of 2014 and that jury voted 11-1 to sentence Arias to death.  The death penalty vote must be unanimous in Arizona and Arias was subsequently sentenced to life in prison in April 2015.  She has appealed the verdict and sentence.

Sometime in 2015, the lawyer began writing a book detailing his representation of Arias without written/oral permission or authority from Arias to publish or disseminate any information related to the representation.  According to the allegations, the book presents a negative view of Arias and the case.  The lawyer’s self-published book, Trapped with Ms. Arias: Part 1 of 3 From Getting the File to Being Ready for Trial (Volume 1), was released in 2015.

The book includes multiple confidential discussions between the lawyer, Arias, and her family. The book also provides details of the case, makes disparaging remarks, and makes several statements regarding the substance of witness interviews and inadmissible exhibits.  The lawyer also continued to disclose and explain certain facts and circumstances in the book related to his representation of Arias in promotional radio interviews.

In October 2016, the State Bar of Arizona filed a formal complaint against the lawyer for revealing attorney-client confidential information about Arias and her case in the book.  The lawyer attempted to settle the case with a 4 year suspension; however, Jodi Arias objected to that sanction.

Immediately after the announcement of the consent agreement, the Maricopa County public defender, James Haas, objected to the Arizona Bar because the agreement did not specifically order the lawyer to stop violating ethical rules with regard to the Arias case, including revealing confidential information, since the book was listed as one of 3 volumes.

The lawyer filed a request for disbarment on November 14, 2016.  The presiding disciplinary judge accepted the lawyer’s request on November 21, 2016 and issued an order making the disbarment effective the same day.

Bottom line:  This lawyer chose to write a book in a highly publicized and lurid case which disparaged his client and revealed attorney/client confidential information, including conversations with her and her family and disparaging comments.  Aria’s conviction is currently on appeal and it has been alleged that information in the book may jeopardize that appeal.

All lawyers should be aware that, unless the client provides informed consent, a lawyer is strictly prohibited from revealing attorney/client confidential information, even after the representation has been concluded.

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

5 Comments

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, Ethics and lawyer withdrawal, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer disbarment personal misconduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Florida mandatory technology lawyer CLE requirements and 33 hour requirement will begin with lawyer’s first reporting cycle after 1/1/17

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert Update which will clarify compliance with the Supreme Court of Florida’s opinion which approved increased total CLE from 30 to 33 and required three hours of continuing legal education in technology related areas/courses.

I have had questions regarding when compliance will begin and, according to the Bar’s website, compliance with the new CLE requirements will begin in the member’s next reporting cycle following the January 1, 2017, effective date.

As I said previously, Florida will become the first state to require technology CLE.  The Court’s opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2016/sc16-574.pdf.  Five of the 33 credit hours must be in approved legal ethics, professionalism, bias elimination, substance abuse, or mental illness awareness programs, and three of the 33 credit hours must be in approved technology programs, which are included in, and are not in addition to, the 33 hour CLE requirement.  The 33-hour requirement does not apply to Florida Registered Paralegals.

Bottom line: Beginning January 1, 2017, lawyers will be required to obtain 33 hours of CLE every 3 years with a minimum of three hours in technology related areas/courses beginning with their next full CLE cycle.

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 Florida 2017 increase in CLE hour requirments, Florida Bar, Florida lawyer 2017 technology CLE requirments, Florida lawyer continuing legal education technology and increase in hours, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

Former Ohio lawyer sentenced to 12 years in prison for hypnotizing and sexually abusing multiple female clients

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent sentencing of a former Ohio lawyer to 12 years in prison for hypnotizing and sexually abusing female clients.

According to media reports, the lawyer, Michael Fine, was sentenced to 12 years in prison on November 14, 2016 and he was also ordered to register as a sex offender for 25 years.  The lawyer was scheduled for trial on Sept. 19, 2016; however, he pled guilty to five counts of kidnapping with sexual motivation and one count of attempted kidnapping about a week before the trial was scheduled to open.

A criminal investigation into the lawyer began in 2014 after a female client discovered that her underwear was disheveled and she also could not recall what had occurred following meetings with the lawyer.  The investigation continued after over 20 women come forward with similar complaints and a former client also began tape recording her conversations with the lawyer.  The recordings showed that the lawyer “began to use ‘code’ words that induced (her) to enter a trance-like stage”.

The lawyer is 59 years old and had practiced law since 1981.  His license was temporarily suspended in November 2014 after a local  Ohio bar association filed a motion with the Ohio Supreme Court stating that the lawyer had “utilized hypnotic therapy to facilitate the impairment of and sexual exploitation of his clients” and requesting that the lawyer be suspended.  The lawyer later submitted an application for resignation, which was granted on August 17, 2015.  That order is here: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2015/2015-Ohio-3265.pdf

Bottom line:  This lawyer engaged in despicable acts which resulted in his removal from the roll of lawyers in Ohio and 12 years in state prison.  This type of predatory criminal conduct is inexcusable and diminishes the reputation of the entire legal profession and also the respect of the public.

As always, 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, does not contain any legal advice, ad 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 criminal misconduct sexual abuse by hypnotism, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer resignation in lieu of discipline/disbarment, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sex with client, Lawyer sexually abusing clients