Monthly Archives: November 2012

Illinois discipline board recommends 2 year suspension for Illinois lawyer/arbitrator’s numerous ex parte communications with counsel for a party and other misconduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss recent Illinois disciplinary hearing board report and recommendation that an Illinois lawyer/arbitrator be suspended from practice for 2 years for conspiring to keep a public administrative proceeding a secret and engaging in multiple ex-parte communications with three lawyers which “discussed the merits of pending cases, contained disparaging comments about their opposing attorneys, and even contained advice from the (lawyer/arbitrator) regarding the handling of the cases.”  The case is In the Matter of Jennifer L. Teague, No. 6255716, Commission No. 2011PR00076 (November 26, 2012).  The board’s report and recommendation is online at: http://www.iardc.org/HB_RB_Disp_Html.asp?id=10703.

According to the board’s report and recommendation, the lawyer was an arbitrator at the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission and her duties included conducting trials and issuing decisions in disputed workers’ compensation cases, “thus, she was the person who was required to be, and to appear to be, an impartial arbitrator.  She failed miserably in that regard.”  The lawyer was found to have engaged in numerous ex-parte e-mail communications with three lawyers in a contested matter and conspiring to keep a public hearing secret.

The board’s report states: “By being in a position of authority and presiding in the cases in which the other three attorneys represented a party, the Respondent could have clearly stopped the exchange of ex-parte e-mails by simply informing the other attorneys not to communicate with her ex parte in regard to any pending matter.  Instead, the Respondent affirmatively participated in the ex parte communications and induced (three other lawyers) to continue to communicate with her in that manner.  The ex-parte e-mails the Respondent exchanged with (the three lawyers) discussed the merits of pending cases, contained disparaging comments about their opposing attorneys, and even contained advice from the Respondent regarding the handling of the cases.”

“The seriousness of Respondent’s misconduct with respect to her actions concerning the setting of a secret hearing in a case before her is, in our opinion, profound, and she exhibited a total absence of understanding of, and responsibility for, her complicity in, and of the gravity of, her actions in that regard.  Freedom of the press, as embodied in the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the freedom to speak, write and publish freely, as embodied in Article I, Section 4, of the Illinois Constitution, are protected and priceless rights. But those rights are not protected if the performing of public functions, including, as in this case, the holding of an administrative hearing, are kept from the media and the public. Every attorney is, upon admission to the Bar, sworn to uphold the laws of the land, which include these constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”

“Conspiring to keep an administrative hearing secret, as Respondent did, was nothing less than an intentional failure to comply with her responsibilities as a member of the Bar.  Moreover, during her testimony Respondent said nothing that indicates to us she understands or is remorseful for that misconduct, but instead she complained that a news organization’s reporting had prevented her from obtaining employment in the legal profession.  The Respondent intentionally and repeatedly engaged in misconduct that jeopardized the appearance of her impartiality and the very integrity of workers’ compensation proceedings.  In addition, the Respondent deliberately set a special hearing in a case for the purpose of preventing the news media from attending the hearing, and then instructed two attorneys to make false statements if they were asked about the reason for the special setting.”

The board concluded that the lawyer “intentionally and repeatedly engaged in misconduct that jeopardized the appearance of her impartiality and the very integrity of workers’ compensation proceedings.  In addition, the Respondent deliberately set a special hearing in a case for the purpose of preventing the news media from attending the hearing, and then instructed two attorneys to make false statements if they were asked about the reason for the special setting.”

After considering the nature of the misconduct, aggravation, mitigation, and relevant cases, the board found that “a sanction less than a two-year suspension would denigrate the seriousness of the Respondent’s misconduct and would erode public trust in the legal profession and administrative officials” and, therefore, that the recommended that the lawyer be suspended for a period of two (2) years.  Separate bar disciplinary cases were also brought against the other lawyers who were involved in the improper contacts.

Bottom line:  This arbitrator/hearing officer in this matter was in the position of a judge/presiding officer and apparently failed to recognize or ignored the essential requirements of impartiality as a part of her duties (and also not to instruct other lawyers to lie).  She may pay for that lapse with a very long suspension of her license to practice law.

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this e-mail 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, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer/arbitrator conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

Ohio lawyer receives 1 year suspension for disclosing attorney/client confidential information to former Ohio State University head football coach Jim Tressel

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss recent Ohio Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 1 year for disclosing confidential information to former Ohio State University head coach Jim Tressel.  The case is Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5457 (November 28, 2012).  The opinion is here: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-Ohio-5457.pdf

According to the opinion, federal law enforcement officials raided someone named Edward Rife’s house on April 1, 2010 (apparently not an April fool’s day joke though) and seized $15,000.00-$20,000.00 worth of Ohio State University football memorabilia as part of a drug-trafficking investigation.  Rife testified that on April 2, 2010, the day after the raid, he and Epling, a former partner in his tattoo business, met with the lawyer to discuss the criminal case.  The lawyer and Epling both testified and denied that an April 2 meeting occurred, but that the lawyer and Epling had a telephone conversation on April 1 during which they discussed the raid.  On April 2, 2010, the lawyer sent an e-mail to Jim Tressel, who was then the head coach of the Ohio State University football team. In the e-mail, the lawyer told Tressel of the possible association between Rife and team members and provided general information about Rife’s background and the raid on his home.

The Ohio disciplinary board concluded that the lawyer violated Ohio Bar Rule 1.18, which requires an attorney to maintain the confidentiality of information gained from consultation with a prospective client and that he had engaged in conduct which adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.  The opinion agreed with the board and stated: “(w)e agree  with the board that (the Ohio Bar) has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Rife was a prospective client of Cicero.  As the panel found, the two discussed the possibility of a client-lawyer  relationship; Cicero admitted this in his e-mails to Tressel, and Rife  testified as to the discussion.  Rife’s  testimony was corroborated by Palmer, who testified that Rife had told him soon  after the meeting with Cicero that Cicero had quoted him a fee.  Rife met with Cicero on April 15 to discuss  his case, and Cicero offered legal advice in response to Rife’s questions.”

“While we recognize that some  limitations on the rule’s protection to prospective clients may be justified, those limitations do not come into play here.  Indeed, this case goes to the very heart of confidentiality between a  prospective client and an attorney.  Before obtaining representation, clients must meet with attorneys, and  attorneys often must obtain sensitive information before they can decide whether to represent a client.  Prospective clients trust that their confidences will be protected when they engage in an initial consultation with an attorney.  Cicero’s almost immediate dissemination of  the detailed information that Rife provided on April 15 directly violated that trust.  This conduct violates  Prof.Cond.R. 1.18, as well as Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to  practice law.”

In deciding on the appropriate discipline, the opinion noted in mitigation that the lawyer had an excellent reputation among attorneys and judges for professional integrity and competence; however, in aggravation, the lawyer was suspended in 1997, his primary motive for disclosing the confidential statements to Tressel was self-aggrandizement, some of his hearing testimony to be disingenuous and not credible by the board, he refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and his disclosure of Rife’s involvement in the player memorabilia transactions exposed Rife and his family to criticism and harassment because of the negative impact on the OSU football program.  By a 5-2 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court imposed a 1 year suspension of the lawyer’s license to practice law in Ohio.

Bottom line:  It appears that this lawyer thought that his disclosure of the confidential information to Tressel would buy him some cache with the former head coach and the football program…we now know how that worked out.  Lawyers should be very aware that client confidences gained during a consultation must be kept confidential even if the lawyer is not ultimately retained.

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this e-mail 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

2 Comments

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, joe corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Kansas appeals court research lawyer is fired for tweeting that an ex-attorney state general was a “naughty, naughty boy” and “douchebag” during a Bar disciplinary hearing

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss recent media articles about a Kansas appeals court research lawyer who was fired for tweeting that an ex-AG was a “naughty naughty boy” and “d—chebag” during Bar disciplinary hearing.

According to the media reports, Sarah Peterson Herr, a research lawyer for a Kansas appeals court was fired on November 19, 2012 after posting derogatory tweets about former Kansas attorney general Phill Kline during a Bar disciplinary hearing which was held on November 15, 2012.  The lawyer apparently posted tweets calling the former attorney general a “naughty, naughty boy” and criticizing his facial expression.  One of the tweets said: “Why is Phil Klein [sic] smiling?  There is nothing to smile about, douchebag.”  The lawyer also tweeted a prediction that Kline would be disbarred for seven years as a result of Bar charges that he or his subordinates misled others during an investigation of abortion providers.

The tweets have now been removed and the lawyer sent the Associated Press an apology which stated: “I didn’t stop to think that in addition to communicating with a few of my friends on Twitter I was also communicating with the public at large, which was not appropriate for someone who works for the court system.  I apologize that because the comments were made on Twitter—and thus public—that they were perceived as a reflection on the Kansas courts.”

Also according to media reports, five of the seven justices of the Kansas Supreme Court previously recused themselves from the Kline disciplinary matter because some of the alleged misconduct occurred either in the justices’ presence or in proceedings filed with the court and the case is being heard by the two remaining justices and five lower court judges.

Bottom line:  Looks like 21st Century technology snared another lawyer.  Please don’t do this…

… and be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this e-mail 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 joe corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyers and social media

Louisiana lawyer permanently disbarred for practicing law as in house counsel for WorldCom/Verizon after his disbarment

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Louisiana Supreme Court opinion which permanently disbarred a lawyer who had been disbarred in Louisiana but worked as in house counsel for WorldCom after he was disbarred.  The case is In re: James David Turnage, No. 12-B-2008 (November 16, 2012).  The opinion here: http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2012/12B2008.pc.pdf.

According to the opinion, the lawyer was admitted to practice in Louisiana in 1993.  He was employed by WorldCom in a non-attorney position in Mississippi in 1999 and was promoted to an attorney position in 2001.  He was disbarred in Louisiana in September 2002 for abandoning clients’ legal matters, failing to communicate with clients regarding the status of their cases, and commingling and converting a substantial amount of client and third-party funds.  The lawyer failed to inform WorldCom of his disbarment and continued to work there as an attorney.  WorldCom was later acquired by Verizon.  The lawyer was promoted to a higher attorney position in August 2003 and to a higher attorney position in February 2007.  Notwithstanding the fact that he was disbarred in Louisiana, the lawyer continued to work as in-house counsel for Verizon until he was terminated in February 2011.

Louisiana Bar discipline charges were filed in September 2011 alleging that the lawyer’s conduct by continuing to act as a lawyer after his disbarment violated Louisiana Bar Rules 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  A hearing committee found that all of the facts set forth in the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven that additional documentary evidence submitted also supported the deemed admitted facts. The Louisiana hearing committee found that the lawyer violated the alleged Bar Rules and that the lawyer’s misconduct was intentional and conscious and resulted in significant and substantial injury and recommended that the lawyer be permanently disbarred.

After review, the Louisiana disciplinary board confirmed that the factual allegations were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the lawyer violated the alleged Bar Rules.  The board also determined that the lawyer knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his employer, the legal system, and the legal profession, and caused injury since the work he performed as an attorney on behalf of his employer could be called into question. The board further determined that the baseline sanction was disbarment.  The board found aggravating factors of prior disciplinary offenses and a dishonest or selfish motive, found no mitigating factors, and recommended that the lawyer be permanently disbarred and be assessed with the costs of the proceedings.   There were no objections to the disciplinary board’s recommendation was filed.  The Supreme Court of Louisiana agreed with the board’s findings and recommendations, observed that the lawyer’s failure to respect the authority of the court clearly demonstrated a lack of fitness to engage in the practice of law, and permanently disbarred the lawyer.

Bottom line:  don’t practice law while you are disbarred.  Practicing law without a license is a third degree felony in the State of Florida.

Be careful out there!

 

 

Disclaimer: this e-mail 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, Communication with clients, deceit, joe corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer lack of communication with client, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer unauthorized practice of law while disbarred

Illinois disciplinary board recommends 4 month suspension for state prosecutor who pulled gun on process server attempting to serve a complaint and summons

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent report and recommendation of the Illinois disciplinary board of a 4 month suspension for prosecutor who pulled a gun on a process server who was attempting to serve him with a summons in a federal lawsuit.  The case is In the Matter of Allen W. James, No. 6239218, Commission No. 08 SH 105 (November 15, 2012).  The Board’s Report and Recommendation is at http://www.iardc.org/HB_RB_Disp_Html.asp?id=10635.

According to the report and recommendation, a licensed private detective, Dees, had been attempting to serve the lawyer, a criminal prosecutor, with a summons and complaint in a federal lawsuit in which the lawyer was named as a defendant since he was the State’s Attorney of Union County, Illinois.  The process server attempted to serve the lawyer at both his office and his home; however, he was unsuccessful since the lawyer was apparently intentionally avoiding service of the summons.

On the morning of March 19, 2008, the process server approached the lawyer in the parking lot of the Union County Courthouse in an attempt to serve the summons and complaint.  According to the board’s report and recommendation, the process server identified himself, displayed a badge, stated he was a process server, and called the lawyer by his name. The lawyer then pulled a loaded .380 semi-automatic handgun from his pocket and pointed it at the investigator.  The process server identified himself again and the lawyer continued to point the gun at him.  The process server then dropped the summons at the lawyer’s feet and left and no shots were fired.  The investigator reported the incident to the Union County Sheriff’s Department.  The lawyer was subsequently charged with aggravated assault and found guilty of that crime.

The lawyer was then charged with violation of Illinois disciplinary rules for misconduct related to criminal charges.  A hearing board conducted proceedings and issued a report stated, in part: “(i)n summary, we find that the Respondent committed the criminal offense of Aggravated Assault in the parking lot of the Union County Courthouse on March 19, 2008, in that the Respondent, without justification, knowingly drew and pointed a loaded handgun, a deadly weapon, at Christopher Dees, a process server, thereby placing Mr. Dees in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.  We also find that, before the Respondent drew his handgun, he knew or had a strong suspicion that Mr. Dees was a process server who was attempting to serve summons on the Respondent, as the Respondent knew Dees had attempted to do on the previous day at both the Respondent’s office and home.  We further find that, at the time the Respondent drew his handgun, the Respondent did not believe that Mr. Dees posed a threat to his safety, and the Respondent did not draw his handgun for the purpose of protecting himself from physical harm.”

The hearing board concluded that the lawyer engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration justice and recommended a 6 month suspension.  After reviewing the hearing board’s findings and considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the disciplinary board recommended a 4 month suspension.  The Illinois Supreme Court will consider the matter and issue a final disciplinary opinion.

Bottom line:  Don’t pull a gun and commit an assault on a process server (who is just doing his or her job)…particularly if you are a criminal prosecutor charged with upholding the law…

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this e-mail 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, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Prosecutor criminal conduct

Dodd-Frank deposit insurance provision which insures unlimited lawyer IOTA funds will expire on 12/31/12 unless renewed by Congress and funds will then qualify only as pass-through fiduciary funds up to $250,000.00 per client

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the scheduled expiration of the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision on December 31, 2012 which would remove the unlimited deposit insurance coverage for Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTAs- called IOTA trust accounts in Florida) to fiduciary account coverage of $250,000.00 per client ledger within the lawyer’s trust account.

I recently received information advising of the expiration of the Dodd-Frank provision on 12/31/12 and a summary of the affect of the expiration of the provision from the FDIC website is below:            

After December 31, 2012, funds deposited in IOLTAs will no longer be insured under the Dodd-Frank Deposit Insurance Provision. However, because IOLTAs are fiduciary accounts, they generally qualify for pass-through coverage on a per-client basis. FDIC regulations provide that deposit accounts owned by one party but held in a fiduciary capacity by another party are eligible for pass-through deposit insurance coverage if (1) the deposit account records generally indicate the account’s custodial or fiduciary nature and (2) the details of the relationship and the interests of other parties in the account are ascertainable from the deposit account records or from records maintained in good faith and in the regular course of business by the depositor or by some person or entity that maintains such records for the depositor.

If an IOLTA does qualify for pass-through coverage as a fiduciary account, then each separate client for whom a law firm holds funds in an IOLTA may be insured up to $250,000.00 for his or her funds.  For example, if a law firm maintains an IOLTA with $250,000.00 attributable to Client A, $150,000.00 to Client B, and $75,000.00 to Client C, the account would be fully insured if the IOLTA meets the requirements for pass-through coverage. If the clients have other funds at the same IDI, those funds would be added to their respective shares of the funds in the IOLTA for insurance coverage purposes.

The website and an FAQ excerpt from 11/9/12 are here:   http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/unlimited/expiration.html and http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2012/fil12045.html.

Bottom line:  If this will affect your practice and your IOTA trust account, you should plan accordingly before 12/31/12 and you can also contact your U.S. Representatives and Senators.

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this e-mail 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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida lawyer trust accounts, joe corsmeier, Lawyer escrow accounts, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer trust accounts

Louisiana discipline board recommends denial of readmission of lawyer disbarred in Louisiana and later admitted in Georgia using false name and failing to disclose La. admission, disbarment, and felony conviction

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Louisiana Disciplinary Board recommendation that a lawyer who was previously disbarred in Louisiana but was admitted to practice in Georgia after using a false name and failing to disclose his prior admission and disbarment and felony conviction be denied reinstatement for the second time.  The case is In Re: Jack P.F. Gremillion, Jr., Case No.: 11-DB-039  (10/29/12) and the Recommendation of the Louisiana Disciplinary Board is here:  http://www.ladb.org/new/DR/?DocID=7815&Title=GREMILLION,%20JACK%20P.F.,%20JR.

According to the Louisiana Board’s Recommendation, the lawyer was disbarred in Louisiana in October 1975 for misconduct related forgery and false statements to a court in Mississippi.  In January 1975, prior to his disbarment, the lawyer pled guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice in federal court.  The conviction was based upon the lawyer’s counseling an individual to not appear as a witness in a federal criminal matter.  The lawyer cooperated with the federal authorities and testified against the defendant. In exchange for his testimony, the lawyer was placed in the Federal Witness Relocation Program, was given the new name of John Paul Farrar, and was relocated to Savannah, Georgia.

In March 1977, after his relocation, the lawyer applied for admission to the Georgia Bar using the new name; however, he failed to disclose the fact that he had previously been admitted in Louisiana, the disbarment, or his felony conviction.  Georgia admitted him under the new name but later learned about his prior record.  In June 1978, the lawyer pled guilty to mail fraud in federal court in Georgia based upon his misrepresentations to an insurance company and creation of forged medical records related to a minor car accident.  After the accident, he apparently misrepresented his financial injury to the insurance company by creating forged medical records to obtain additional compensation.  The lawyer was sentenced to three (3) years of incarceration with 2 1/2 years suspended.

The Georgia disciplinary authorities became aware of the lawyer’s true name and identity and began discipline proceedings based upon his misrepresentations on his bar application and conviction for mail fraud. The lawyer later voluntarily resigned from the Georgia Bar.

The lawyer had previously applied for readmission in Louisiana in 2002 and was denied in 2006.  The Board’s Recommendation acknowledged that, during the time period of the lawyer’s misconduct, he was addicted to amphetamines and alcohol and the lawyer entered treatment in 1985; however, after reviewing the case law and the 11 criteria required for reinstatement in Louisiana, the Board found that the lawyer had not presented “good and sufficient reasons why he should be readmitted to the practice of law.  Given the egregious nature and magnitude of the misconduct that Petitioner engaged in after his disbarment, the Board would be remiss in its obligation to uphold the integrity of the profession if it did not recommend that the petition for readmission be denied.”   The recommendation will now be reviewed by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Bottom line:  This is somewhat bizarre case with some strange facts.  I guess the takeaway is that if a lawyer is disbarred and testify against a criminal defendant and is given a new name under the witness protection program, that lawyer shouldn’t use the new name and lie on the Bar application when applying for admission in another state…

Be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this e-mail 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, deceit, joe corsmeier, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer drug misconduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer readmission denial