Category Archives: Attorney misrepresentation

Missouri lawyer alleged to have used payroll document and opposing counsel’s written direct exam questions from e-mails hacked by client

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the disciplinary case against a Missouri lawyer who is alleged to have used a payroll document and direct examination questions of opposing counsel which were obtained by the client/ex-husband by hacking the wife’s e-mail account.  The disciplinary counsel’s brief is here: Disciplinary Counsel Brief.

According to the brief, the lawyer’s client (the husband in a divorce proceeding) provided the lawyer with two documents that the client had obtained by hacking the wife’s e-mail account.  The documents included a payroll document showing the wife’s recent salary and distribution document and a list of direct examination questions prepared by the wife’s attorney for the divorce trial.  The lawyer allegedly used the payroll document information during a settlement conference in July 2013 without disclosing that he had possession of it.

On February 11, 2014, the second day of trial, the list of the direct examination questions was included in a stack of exhibits provided by the lawyer in the courtroom and opposing counsel learned that the lawyer had the document for the first time.  When opposing counsel asked the lawyer why he had possession the list, he replied (apparently flippantly) that it contained a lot of leading questions and he planned to object to them.  The lawyer later stated that his paralegal had included the questions in the stack of exhibits and that he was joking when he made the remark about the leading questions.

In a conference held in the judge’s chambers the same day, the lawyer initially said that he had not seen the list of direct examination questions before that day; however, he later admitted he had seen the list of questions but claimed that he did not read the document.  The lawyer’s client admitted under oath that he had obtained the documents by accessing his wife’s personal e-mail account without her permission and that he had provided the documents to the lawyer.

According to the brief: “When questioned about his statement under oath on February 11, 2014, ‘that at some point in time [he] had read the first portion of that and realized that it was verboten, it was something that [he] should not have,’ Respondent testified that when he said ‘at some point in time’ he meant ‘that day’ in court when Jones confronted him with the list.”

The brief outlines the lawyer’s prior disciplinary record, which includes:

March 9, 1991 admonishment for communicating ex parte with the judge on two occasions during the pendency of a lawsuit in violation of Rule 4-3.5(b).

June 17, 1997 suspension with leave to apply for reinstatement not sooner than six (6) months as a result of a guilty plea in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the misdemeanor of willfully failing to submit an Income Tax Return.

November 2, 1999 admonishment for communicating ex parte with the judge during the pendency of a lawsuit in violation of Rule 4-3.5(b.

January 18, 2001 admonishment for failing to respond to the OCDC on three occasions for requests for information regarding an ethics complaint in violation of Rule 4-8.1(b).

July 6, 2004 admonishment for a Rule 4-3.3(d) violation for “failing to inform the tribunal in an ex parte proceeding of all material facts known to the lawyer enabling the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. Specifically: ‘When asked by Judge Dildine of Lincoln County what the exigent circumstances were that required his signature on a consent order presented by Respondent, Respondent replied that it was necessary to get the minor child at issue on a health insurance policy. The statement to the Court was inconsistent with Respondent’s testimony before the Division IV Committee wherein he stated that obtaining the judge’s signature on the order was necessary in order that Respondent’s clients regain custody of the minor child from parties whom his clients considered inappropriate.’”

The brief also alleges that the lawyer threatened opposing counsel regarding her “gossip” about the matter.  The disciplinary counsel’s brief seeks an indefinite suspension with no leave to apply for reinstatement until after 12 months.  The Missouri Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the case this month.

Bottom line: If the facts in the brief are true, this is a rather egregious case of a lawyer acting unethically.  The lawyer was (or should have been) aware that the documents were obtained by the client improperly and without the wife’s permission and, compounding the misconduct, the lawyer failed to advise opposing counsel that he had received the improperly obtained privileged and confidential documents (as is required in most, if not all jurisdictions).  The lawyer also used the payroll document against the wife in a mediation and may have arguably been planning to use the direct examination questions without opposing counsel’s knowledge until the paralegal included the document with the copies of exhibits apparently by mistake.

Be careful out there and don’t do this (if it is true)!

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, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Communication with clients, 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 disruptive litigation conduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer improper use of confidential privileged documents, Lawyer sanctions

Pennsylvania lawyer agrees to disbarment for forging judge’s name on court order and misspelling it

 

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court disciplinary Order disbarring a lawyer on consent for forging a judge’s name on an Order and misspelling it. The disciplinary case is In the Matter of Stephen P. Ellwood, Docket No. 181 DB 2015 (11/10/15), and the disbarment entry is here:  http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/look-up/supreme-court-actions.php

According to media reports, the lawyer represented a client in a matter and claimed that he had obtained the $250,000.00 judgment.  The former client then went to another lawyer for assistance in collecting the judgment that he thought he had received; however, the new lawyer noticed that the judge’s name had been misspelled in the order.

After being confronted with the evidence, the lawyer admitted to forging the signature and agreed to two years of probation with 75 hours of community service in a criminal prosecution.  The lawyer then agreed to be disbarred by consent after admitting to forging a judge’s signature on a $250,000.00 judgment.  The media reports are here:  http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/11/schuylkill_attorney_disbarred.html and here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_gets_probation_for_forging_judges_name_on_court_order_and_is_disbarr/

Bottom line: This is a very bizarre example of a lawyer who apparently wanted a client to believe that he had accomplished a positive result and resorted to creating a false judgment, which led to his criminal prosecution and disbarment.

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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer disbarment forging court order, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer discipline forging court order, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions

North Carolina Bar complaint alleges, inter alia, that lawyer made disparaging statements about judges in court documents

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent disciplinary complaint against a North Carolina lawyer who is alleged to have made disparaging comments about lawyers and judges in court pleadings including, inter alia, accusing judges of “overwhelming incompetence and ignorance, as well as asinine and unprofessional behavior” and “acting like mentally challenged cheerleaders”.  The disciplinary case is North Carolina State Bar v. Michael J. Anderson, 15-DHA-47 and the disciplinary Complaint is here:  http://www.ncbar.com/discipline/DHC_File_DHC_file_filename_bv.asp?DHC_file_doc=889

The disciplinary complaint contains three counts/claims, including one count with allegations regarding the lawyer’s failure to respond to a grievance against him and making false statements, a second with allegations regarding his handling his trust account, and a third with allegations regarding his pleadings in a workers’ compensation case.

With regard to the workers’ compensation matter, the lawyer filed a civil complaint on behalf of a client, responded to a motion to dismiss and handled an appeal to the state court of appeals.  He is alleged to have made a number of disparaging statements in his pleadings, including accusing the court of “overwhelming incompetence and ignorance… I felt just as I imagine I would have over a century ago arguing to said court that slavery was bad labor relations policy… [the court showed] a stubborn arrogance and ignorance…[a judge] literally threw a temper tantrum…As I felt like I was attempting to teach physics to a class of unruly third graders.”

In another pleading, the lawyer allegedly stated: “the lack of intellectual functioning and overt partiality of this panel…being readily apparent but, acting like mentally challenged cheerleaders, knowing they wanted to motivate their team to victory, but not sure how to accomplish the goal… [the judge] was assuming the role of ‘house negro’ for purposes of this matter…Sounding more like ‘Beaver Cleaver’ than any person has a right to…”

In another pleading: the lawyer allegedly stated “the instant panel will glad [sic] play thee [sic] blind mice and [Judge] will serve the historical role played by Monica Lewinsky for President Clinton for the current governor of North Carolina… if these judges are intent upon making the [court] a literal ‘whippin boy’ for special interests, they are welcome to kiss my red white and blue American male ass.”

Bottom line: If the allegations are true, this case involves a lawyer who had great difficulty with objectivity and civility in the language of his pleadings, to say the least.  We all know that lawyers are under constant stress and we may be unhappy with judges’ decisions and this is a classic example of how not to handle it.  There is no place for such language and disparaging statements in court documents, or otherwise.

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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer disparaging comments about lawyers and judges, Lawyer disparaging comments about lawyers and judges in pleadings and appeals, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false statements in response to Bar complaint, Lawyer impugning qualifications or integrity of judge, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions

Florida lawyer permanently disbarred for, inter alia, soliciting and making misrepresentations on website and representing clients in other states

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court Order approving the Report of Referee and permanently disbarring a Florida lawyer for soliciting over the internet and representing clients in states in which she was not admitted, lack of diligence and communication, making false statements, and failing to respond to the allegations.  The case is: The Florida Bar v. Alma C. Defillo, Case No. SC15-593 (August 28, 2015).  The Order is here: http://www.floridabar.org/DIVADM/ME/MPDisAct.nsf/DISACTVIEW/4C69AF1FB7B03A1285257EB4000922AC/$FILE/_27.PDF.

According to the Report of Referee, which is attached, The Florida Bar filed a 6 count Complaint against the lawyer and a Request for Admissions on March 31, 2015.  The lawyer failed to respond and the referee entered a default and “the matters pled in the Bar’s Complaint became the substantive facts in this case by operation of law.”

“(R)espondent, despite being only a member of The Florida Bar, also maintained offices in North and South Carolina given her immigration practice. As a result of respondent’s significant misconduct in South Carolina (detailed below), the South Carolina Supreme Court permanently debarred respondent in that state. In order to protect the interests of respondent’s South Carolina clients, the South Carolina Supreme Court appointed a Receiver. The Florida Bar was able to track down some of respondent’s files and has been cooperating with the Receiver to provide the files of respondent’s South Carolina clients that are in the Bar’s possession.”

The Report states that the lawyer represented various clients who were residents of North Carolina and South Carolina in immigration/INS matters.  The clients complained that the lawyer failed to communicate with them, lacked diligence, and did not perform any services on their behalf.  In addition, according to the Report:

On November 1, 2013, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) of the Supreme Court of South Carolina charged respondent with violations of their Rules.

Although respondent is not admitted in South Carolina, she maintained a law office, advertised, and offered legal services there.

The ODC charged respondent with writing to state judicial officers regarding her South Carolina clients’ criminal cases in violation of Rules 7.1 and 7.5(a)&(d) South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (“SCRPC”) and Rule 407 South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (“CSACR”).

Respondent’s letterhead and advertisements also failed to clarify that she was not admitted in South Carolina in violation of  Rules 5.5(b)(2), 7.1, and 7.5(a)&(b) SCRPC.

Similarly respondent’s website, available to residents of South Carolina and referencing her office in Greenville, contained misrepresentations and omitted facts necessary to make the contents considered as a whole not materially misleading in violation of Rule 7.1(a) SCRPC by failing to state that she was not admitted in South Carolina.

Additionally, respondent’s website advertised her experience in both criminal and family matters and offered to “analyze the facts of [her prospective client’s] cases by applying current … State Laws” in violation of Rules 5.5(b)(2) and 7.1(a) SCRPC.

Respondent’s website misleadingly referred to “lawyers” and “attorneys” when in fact, respondent was a sole practitioner in violation of Rules 7.1(a) and 7.5(d) SCRPC.

Respondent’s website compared her services to other lawyers in a way that could not be factually substantiated in violation of Rule 7.1(c) SCRPC.

Respondent’s website used “specialist” and “expert” in violation of Rule 7.4(b) SCRPC despite not being certified by the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Respondent’s business cards and other print advertisements, regarding her Greenville office, failed to disclose that respondent was not admitted in South Carolina in violation of Rules 5.5(b)(2) and 7.1(a) SCRPC.

Respondent’s radio advertisements, disseminated in South Carolina, failed to disclose that respondent was not admitted in South Carolina in violation of Rules 5.5(b)(2) and 7.1(a) SCRPC.

Respondent, despite initially cooperating with the investigation in South Carolina, then failed to respond in violation of Rule 8.1(b) SCRPC.

Based on respondent’s failure to respond, the ODC noticed respondent for an interview. Respondent failed to appear in violation of 8.1(b) SCRPC.

In respondent’s initial response to ODC, she misrepresented that her practice was limited to immigration law and that she had not communicated otherwise in any way in violation of Rule 7(a) Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (“RLDE”).

By virtue of the foregoing respondent also violated Rules 7(a)(1)&(3) RLDE and Rules 407 & 413 SCACR by violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and failing to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority.

On July 29, 2014, based on the charges filed by ODC, the Supreme Court of South Carolina entered its Order permanently debarring respondent from seeking any form of admission to practice in South Carolina and from advertising or soliciting business in South Carolina without first seeking leave of that Court. The Court also ordered that respondent complete the South Carolina Bar’s Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Advertising Workshop before asking leave of the Court to practice or advertise.

The Report further states:  “Respondent is currently serving a one-year suspension in SC14-1419, TFB File Nos. 2012-00,321(4B) and 2013-00,832(4B). Additionally, Respondent was recently held in contempt for her failure to respond to the two initial grievances herein and was therefore also suspended indefinitely in SC15-293, TFB File No. 2015-00,468(4B).”

After considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, case law, and the Florida Standards for Lawyer Sanctions, the referee recommended permanent disbarment and payment of the Bar’s costs.  The lawyer did not request review of the recommendation and the Supreme Court adopted the Report of Referee and permanently disbarred the lawyer.  The Supreme Court approved the Report of Referee and permanently disbarred the lawyer.

The lawyer was also permanently barred from practicing law in South Carolina in 2014 and my blog on that case here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/south-carolina-supreme-court-prohibits-another-florida-lawyer-from-practicing-law-who-solicited-over-the-internet-made-misrepresentations-and-represented-clients/

Bottom line: This lawyer was advertising for clients in immigration matters on the internet and made misrepresentations regarding the scope and location of her practice.  The lawyer also was negligent, failed to communicate with clients, and failed to perform services.  This shows how the internet can be misused by a lawyer to obtain clients in other states in which the lawyer is not admitted to practice.

Let’s 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, dishonesty, Florida Bar, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer lack of communication with client, Lawyer lack of diligence, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer permanent disbarment, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sanctions for unlicensed practice of law, Lawyer unlicensed practice of law, Unauthorized practice of law

Tennessee lawyer who, inter alia, billed clients for watching crime TV shows and was “doggedly unrepentant” is suspended for one year

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Tennessee Supreme Court disciplinary opinion which suspended a lawyer for one year for, inter alia, billing clients for watching true-crime shows.  The opinion is Yarboro Sallee v. Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, No. E2014-01062-SC-R3-BP (July 23, 2015) and is online here:  http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/salleeyarboro.opn_.pdf

According to the opinion, the underlying matter involved an accident which occurred on October 15, 2009.  The decedent, Lori Noll, fell down steps in her home and died five days later. Although a medical examiner found that the death was accidental, the Ms. Noll’s parents suspected that their daughter’s husband was motivated by a one-million dollar insurance policy on Ms. Noll’s life and was responsible for her death.

The lawyer was hired by the parents in September 2010 to file a wrongful death action.  The lawyer estimated that the litigation would cost no more than $100,000.00.  The parents agreed to pay the lawyer an hourly rate of $250.00 and paid her an initial retainer of $5,000.00.  The parents paid the lawyer an additional $15,000.00 and, within a month after the initial engagement, the parents paid an additional $19,000.00 in three separate checks: (1) $10,000.00 as a further retainer (2) $4,000.00 flat fee for the juvenile court proceeding, and (3) $5,000.00 to retain a forensics expert.

Less than three months later, the lawyer claimed that she had incurred hourly fees totaling over $140,000.00.  At that point, she had done “little more” than file the wrongful death complaint, file related pleadings in probate and juvenile court, and gather records.  When the lawyer insisted that the clients agree to pay her a contingency fees plus the hourly fees, they terminated her.

After the clients terminated the lawyer, she refused to return to them important evidence and documents related to the wrongful death litigation, including brain tissue slides from their daughter’s autopsy. The clients sued the lawyer to force her to return the withheld items and the lawyer threatened to file criminal charges against them. The clients then filed a complaint against the lawyer with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility.

The Professional Responsibility Board investigated the lawyer, who argued that her conduct had been reasonable and ethical.  She provided the Board documentation of her hourly charges, which claimed that she had worked as many as 23 hours of billable time in a single day and included fees for tasks such as watching many hours of reality and fictional crime TV shows.

A hearing panel found that the lawyer had violated numerous the Bar by charging excessive fees, demanding that the clients agree to pay a contingency fee in addition to hourly fees, failing to communicate with the clients regarding the basis for the fees, improperly withholding items from the clients after they discharged her, and threatening to file criminal charges against the clients. The hearing panel found five aggravating factors: (1) a dishonest and selfish motive; (2) a pattern of misconduct; (3) multiple offenses; (4) refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her conduct; and (5) indifference to making restitution and one mitigating factor: the absence of a prior disciplinary record and recommended a one year suspension.

The lawyer requested judicial review of the hearing panel’s recommendation, and the trial judge upheld the sanction. The lawyer then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, claiming that there was no basis for finding ethical violations and that the one year suspension was too severe.  The opinion upheld the hearing panel’s findings that the lawyer violated multiple ethical rules and the one year suspension.  “At every turn in these proceedings, faced with findings at every level that her conduct breached numerous ethical rules, Attorney Sallee has been doggedly unrepentant. Indeed, her consistent response has bordered on righteous indignation.”

The opinion further stated:  “Assuming arguendo that the hourly rate of $250 per hour is reasonable for Attorney Sallee’s experience and ability, it is important under the Rules that the lawyer ensure that the work for which he or she seeks to charge the client is ‘reasonable.’ For example, a lawyer who represents criminal clients may be interested in watching Perry Mason or Breaking Bad on television, and may even pick up a useful tidbit or two from doing so. The lawyer may not, however, equate that to research for which he or she may charge a client. In this case, the Panel did not err in considering the many hours Attorney Sallee sought to charge the Claimants for watching television shows such as 48 Hours.

“Attorney Sallee also objected to the trial court’s comment that she ‘watched TV and charged her client for it.’ She characterized this statement as ‘ridiculous,’ adding, ‘since when is television not a respectable avenue for research anyway.’ Attorney Sallee pointed to a particular time entry on her ‘billing statement’ as legitimate billable time because it was spent watching a five-hour documentary on the Peterson ‘Stair Case Murder’ in North Carolina. Her motion did not address a 12.5-hour time entry on September 25, 2010, for watching ‘48 Hours’ episodes on similar spousal homicides, a 4.0-hour time entry on October 19, 2010 for watching four ‘48 Hours’ episodes on asphyxia, or a 3.5-hour time entry on October 20, 2010 for watching these same ‘48 Hours’ episodes a second time. At Attorney Sallee’s regular hourly rate, this would amount to over $5,000 for watching episodes of ‘48 Hours.’”

Bottom line: This is an egregious example of a lawyer seriously abusing billable time and charging an excessive fee, including charging as many as 23 billable hours in one day and charging multiple billable hours watching crime TV shows.  To compound her problems, the lawyer refused to turn over the clients’ evidence and information after they had terminated her and apparently completely failed to grasp that she had committed any misconduct.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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, deceit, dishonesty, Excessive fee, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, lawyer excessive fee, Lawyer improper fees, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions

Louisiana lawyer disbarred for social media campaign with “false, misleading and inflammatory statements” to influence custody case

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary opinion disbarring a lawyer who, inter alia, made false statements and used Twitter and an online petition to urge readers to contact two presiding judges who she alleged were unwilling to consider the evidence in two child custody cases involving allegations of sexual abuse.  The disciplinary opinion is In Re: Joyce Nanine McCool, No. 2015-B-0284 (June 30, 2015) and the opinion is online here: http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2015/15B0284.opn.pdf

According to the opinion, the lawyer solicited others to make ex-parte contact with presiding judges and the Louisiana Supreme Court to make comments about the cases, which were sealed and confidential proceedings.  The opinion referred to several examples of the lawyer’s media comments, including this tweet: “GIMME GIMME GIMME Evidence! Want some? I got it. Think u can convince a judge to look at it? Sign this petition.”  “Another tweet said, ―Judge

Gambrell at it again – turned a 4 YO child over to a validated abuser – PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IT WILL TAKE FOR EVERYON [sic] TO SAY ‗ENOUGH‘.”

The lawyer also made the following comment: “Please sign the petition, circulate it to all of your friends and families and call Judge Amacker and Judge Gambrell during the hours of 8:30 to 5:00 starting Monday, August 15 to ask why they won’t follow the law and protect these children. Let them know you’re watching and expect them to do their job and most of all, make sure these precious little girls are safe!”

The opinion stated: “These online articles and postings by respondent contain numerous false, misleading, and inflammatory statements about the manner in which (the presiding judges) were handling the pending cases. But respondent denies any responsibility for these misstatements, contending these were ―Raven‘s perceptions of what had happened‖ and respondent was simply ―helping [Raven] get her voice out there.”

The lawyer argued that her conduct was protected by the First Amendment; however, the majority of the Court rejected that argument. “We disagree and take strong exception to respondent’s artful attempt to use the First Amendment as a shield against her clearly and convincingly proven ethical misconduct.” The opinion also stated that the lawyer had an “utter lack of remorse” and a “defiant attitude” by asserting her actions had First Amendment protection.  “The appropriate method for challenging a judge’s decisions and evidentiary rulings, as respondent even conceded, is through the writ and appeal process, not by starting a social media blitz to influence the judges’ and this court’s rulings in pending matters and then claiming immunity from discipline through the First Amendment.”

A disciplinary hearing committee conducted a hearing on February 27, 2014, and March 27, 2014 in which both presiding judges testified. The lawyer also testified and repeatedly denied that she violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.  She also implied and/or stated that her conduct was justified by what the judges had done in the underlying cases and in the interest of protecting the minor children.  The hearing committee recommended that the lawyer be found guilty and recommended a suspension of a year and a day and the disciplinary board concurred.

The opinion concluded: “Respondent’s misconduct is further distinguishable because of her use of the internet and social media to facilitate her misconduct.  As a result, the petition and associated offensive postings had and still have the potential to reach a large number of people world-wide and remain present and accessible on the world wide web even today.  Coupled with her complete lack of remorse and admitted refusal to simply allow our system of review to work without seeking outside interference, respondent’s misconduct reflects a horrifying lack of respect for the dignity, impartiality, and authority of our courts and our judicial process as a whole.”

“Respondent’s social media campaign conducted outside the sealed realm of the underlying judicial proceedings constitutes, in our view, an intolerable disservice to these traditions and our judicial system, which the constraints of our rules of professional conduct seek to safeguard against. Accordingly, we find her ethical misconduct warrants the highest of sanction—disbarment.”

Bottom line:  This lawyer’s misconduct involved the extensive use of social media in a campaign to discredit the judicial system/obtain justice for the children.  The Louisiana Supreme Court found that her misconduct “reflects a horrifying lack of respect for the dignity, impartiality, and authority of our courts and our judicial process as a whole.”  All lawyers must be very wary of using social media to promote their clients’ causes.  This lawyer’s use of social media led to her disbarment.

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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline social media misuse, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

Minnesota lawyer suspended for, inter alia, making false and/or misleading statements related to trip which caused missed court dates

 

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent Minnesota Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer for making false or misleading statements related to a Paris trip which caused her to miss a trial and  court dates.  The opinion is In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Mpatanishi Syanaloli Tayari-Garrett, Case No. A14-0995 (July 1, 2015) and is online here: http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Supreme%20Court/Standard%20Opinions/OPA140995-070115.pdf

According to the opinion, the lawyer is admitted to practice in Texas and Minnesota.  She requested a continuance of a May 2, 2011 trial for her client in a criminal matter in Minnesota.  Before a hearing was held on the motion, the lawyer had purchased a nonrefundable round-trip airline ticket to attend her brother’s wedding in Paris, France from May 4, 2011 to May 9, 2011.

The trial court denied the lawyer’s motion to continue and another lawyer who showed up on the lawyer’s behalf on the May 2, 2011 trial date said she had informed him that she was hospitalized in Dallas.  The court granted a continuance for one day and ordered the lawyer to provide documentation of the circumstances surrounding her hospitalization and also the arrangements she had made to travel from Dallas to Minneapolis for the May 2, 2011 trial.  The lawyer failed to attend the May 3, 2011 hearing.

The lawyer later provided documents showing that she was hospitalized on May 2, 2011; however, she was released the next day.  On May 4, 2011, she traveled to Paris.  While she was in Paris, the lawyer attended a May 5, 2011 hearing on a motion for an order to show cause as to why she should not be held in contempt by telephone. The lawyer discussed her illness but did not reveal that she was in Paris at that time.  According to the opinion, “(d)uring the hearing, the court scheduled a contempt hearing for May 9.  In response, the lawyer stated, ‘I have a follow-up appointment next week so I cannot, and I believe the Court is aware of that, that I cannot be there on Monday [May 9].’  (The lawyer) did not appear for the May 9 hearing either in person or by telephone.  In fact, at the time of the May 9 hearing, Tayari-Garrett was en route from Paris to Dallas.”

The referee found the lawyer guilty of multiple Bar Rule violations, including committing a criminal act, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and also found aggravating factors that included lack of remorse and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct.  The referee also recommended that the lawyer be indefinitely suspended no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of 120 days.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the referee’s findings and the suspension is effective 14 days from the date of the filing of the July 1, 2015 opinion.  The lawyer will not be eligible to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of 120 days from the date of the suspension and any reinstatement will be conditional on the lawyer’s successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination and satisfaction of Minnesota continuing legal education requirements.

Bottom line:  According to this opinion, this lawyer failed to appear at a hearing and lied to the court regarding the circumstances surrounding her failure to appear and she was also convicted of a criminal misdemeanor for contempt of court.  She received an indefinite suspension will not be eligible to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of 120 days from the date of the suspension.  This is an example of the application of the quote by Sir Walter Scott in 1808 (often misattributed to Shakespeare), “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.”  Another jurisdiction may well have imposed a harsher sanction.

Don’t do this…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.

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 conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions