Category Archives: Attorney misrepresentation

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

Illinois lawyer who lied about mother’s death and health problems to justify discovery delays and the continuance of a hearing consents to disbarment

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent motion for revocation/disbarment filed by an Illinois lawyer in response to allegations that he lied about his mother’s death and his own health to try to justify discovery delays and support a continuance of a hearing in two separate cases.  The case is In the Matter of: Keith Joseph Hays, Supreme Court No. M.R.27422 Commission No. 2014PR00065.  The lawyer resigned from the Indiana Bar in April 2015.  The lawyer filed a motion requesting that his name be stricken from the list of Illinois Attorneys and the link to the Illinois Bar Statement of Charges and is here:  http://www.iardc.org/P14PR0065OC.html

According to the Statement of Charges, the lawyer lied about the reasons for his delayed responses to discovery and request to continue a hearing in two Indiana cases, and made settlement offers without authorization in a third case.

In one case, the lawyer justified his delays in responding to discovery requests by claiming that his mother had been “killed in a violent car accident in the state of Colorado.”  The lawyer also said that she died in “the fire and smoke inhalation from the resulting conflagration,” and that he was “left scrambling between Indiana, Colorado and Idaho for weeks trying to get his mother buried, her estate resolved and her pets adopted.”  The lawyer’s mother not been involved in a car accident or died.

In another case, the lawyer filed an emergency motion to continue a hearing and claimed that he had been diagnosed with “double pneumonia” and went to an emergency room; however, the lawyer did not actually have pneumonia and, incredibly, he billed his client for time that he spent working on the case when he was supposedly incapacitated.

The lawyer admitted to the following facts:

“In 2011, Respondent represented Staples the Office Superstore East (a subsidiary of Staples, Inc.; hereafter, “Staples”), the defendant in a personal injury action filed in Indiana state court by Max Jackson (“Jackson”). In the course of discovery, Jackson filed a motion for sanctions alleging that Respondent’s client, Staples, had failed to fully respond to a request for production of documents and interrogatories. Respondent filed a response in which he claimed, in part, that his mother had been “killed in a violent car accident in the state of Colorado,” that she perished from “the fire and smoke inhalation from the resulting conflagration,” and that Respondent “was left scrambling between Indiana, Colorado and Idaho for weeks trying to get his mother buried, her estate resolved and her pets adopted.” Respondent’s statements were false, and he knew they were false, since his mother had neither died nor been involved in a car accident, and Respondent had not been “left scrambling between Indiana, Colorado and Idaho” to resolve his mother’s affairs.”

“In 2011, Respondent represented Reed & Company, P.C. (“Reed”), the defendant in a civil lawsuit filed in Indiana state court by Wabash Center, Inc. (“Wabash”). After Wabash filed a motion for partial summary judgment, the court set the matter for hearing on that motion. On the date of the scheduled hearing, Respondent filed an emergency motion requesting that the hearing be continued, based on his representation that the day before, he had been diagnosed with “double pneumonia” and sent to the emergency room. Respondent’s statements were false, and Respondent knew they were false, as Respondent had not been sent to the emergency room with pneumonia, and in fact, he had billed his client Reed for time spent preparing a summary judgment motion on Reed’s behalf during the time period that he purportedly was incapacitated.”

Bottom line: According to the facts to which the lawyer admitted, he made some incredible false statements which could easily be refuted, and his lies were ultimately discovered.  I’m not doctor, but there would appear to be some serious psychological issues underlying this conduct.

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 conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer filing frivolous pleading, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer resignation in lieu of discipline/disbarment, Lawyer sanctions

Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspends lawyer for 2 years for assisting UPL, improperly accessing CM/ECF, and making false statements

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order approving the Report and Recommendations of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board and suspending a lawyer for 2 years for, inter alia, aiding the unlicensed practice of law, improperly accessing the bankruptcy court’s CM/ECF system, and making false statements when he was confronted with the allegations.  The case is Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. William Nivan Renwick, No. 2146 Disc. Docket No. 3, No. 153 DB 2013  (Pa. SC May 14, 2015).  The link to the SC Order and Report and Recommendations are here: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/153DB2013-Renwick.pdf.

According to the March 12, 2015 Report and Recommendations of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board, the lawyer, who had been practicing for more than 30 years, appeared at hearings and creditor meeting for “several” of a suspended lawyer’s clients and filed documents with U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court CM/ECF system by using the suspended lawyer’s electronic filing account number.  The lawyer also changed the name on the suspended lawyer’s CM/ECF account twice, once in December 2007 to the name of a lawyer who was not licensed to practice, and a second time in November 2009 to his own name.

The Report further states that the lawyer did not have the required training to use the CM/ECF system and improperly used the suspended lawyer’s account.  At a hearing held in August 2012, the chief judge of the bankruptcy court ordered the CM/ECF account closed and required the lawyer to send notices to the those involved in his cases stating that his authorization to file documents on the system had been terminated.

When the chief judge asked the lawyer where worked at the hearing, he told the judge he had been “working in the other office in whatever it is, Altoona or whatever”, which was a false statement.  The lawyer was then suspended from practice before the District Court.  According to the Report, “(n)ot only did (the lawyer) assist (the suspended lawyer) in the unauthorized practice of law, his own practice was in violation of the federal rules because he didn’t obtain his own identification number. When asked about his practices, (the lawyer) told the judge he practiced in the office of Augusto Delerme in Altoona.”  The Pennsylvanoa Supreme Court upheld the Board’s recommendation and suspended the lawyer for 2 years

Bottom line:  This lawyer apparently was trying to help a suspended lawyer; however, he failed dismally in his attempts and he also made some misleading/false statements at the hearing before the chief judge along the way.

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 assisting unlicensed practice of law, Lawyer assisting unlicensed practice of law (UPL), Lawyer assisting UPL, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer sanctions, Unauthorized practice of law

Illinois imposes one year suspension on (former) law firm partner who falsified and received $69,800.00 in client expense reimbursement

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Illinois Supreme Court Order which imposed a one year suspension on a law firm partner who falsified and received $69,800.00 in client expense reimbursement claims.  The case is In re: Lee Mark Smolen, Disciplinary Commission, M.R.27199, No. 2013PR00060 (March 12, 2015).  The summary disciplinary Order is here: http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Announce/2015/031215.pdf

As I reported in my January 12, 2015 Ethics Alert, a law firm audit found that the lawyer had submitted $69,800.00 in falsified taxi expenses and questioned an additional $379,000.00 reimbursed expenses.  The lawyer admitted that he “falsified and submitted for reimbursement more than 800 receipts for cab rides he did not take. He further admits he received reimbursement totaling $69,800 for the fabricated receipts.”

According to the Hearing Board Report, the expenses were charged to an unallocated client account which was “virtually unmonitored”.  The lawyer agreed that the law firm could withdraw $400,000.00 from his account to cover the expenses and the cost of the audit and he testified he used the cab money to pay for client entertainment, saving the time of making out expense reports.  He testified that he only slept three or four hours a night and typically spent 12 to 15 hours a day at work.

The Report further stated that the lawyer’s “mental health issues and his misconduct” were considered and one doctor opined there was a “loose association” between the lawyer’s personality disorder and his misconduct because the lawyer “was excessively devoted to work as a result of his obsessive-compulsive disorder.”  Another doctor stated that the lawyer’s depressive disorder and anxiety disorder led to “tremendous impairment of judgment” which led to the misconduct.  Both doctors found that the lawyer’s mental health played at least a minor role in his misconduct and gave it “some weight” as a mitigating factor.

 

According to the Report:  “We recognize that the amount of Respondent’s falsified expenses is greater than the amounts in the (cited) cases but in light of (the lawyer’s) significant mitigation we do not believe a suspension of more than one year is warranted.  We believe a one-year suspension addresses the severity of the misconduct and also takes into consideration the substantial mitigating factors.”

The Report recommended that (the lawyer) be suspended for one year and until he completed at least twelve months of continuous treatment with a psychiatrist. The lawyer’s suspension would terminate after one year if he “demonstrates his completion of treatment to the Administrator’s satisfaction.”  The Illinois Supreme Court adopted the Report and suspended the lawyer for one year with the recommended conditions.

Bottom line:  As I said previously, this lawyer admitted that he falsified and submitted for reimbursement more than 800 receipts for cab rides he did not take and received payment for nearly $70,000.00 from clients for the fabricated receipts.  An audit also questioned an additional $379,000.00 in reimbursed expenses.  In light of the large amount of the lawyer’s admitted misappropriation, it is surprising that the Board did not recommend disbarment for the misconduct and also that the Illinois Supreme Court approved the one year suspension recommendation.

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 conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer expense reimbursement, Lawyer misappropriation, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer misrepresentations to law firm re billings, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Louisiana Disciplinary Board recommends year and one day suspension for lawyer who allegedly offered bribe to a witness and lied about it

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Recommendation of a one year and one day suspension for, inter alia, alleged attempts to bribe a witness and false statements denying the misconduct. The disciplinary opinion is In re: Donald R. Pryor, No: 13-DB-036 (February 5, 2015) and the disciplinary recommendation is online here: https://www.ladb.org/DR/handler.document.aspx?DocID=8353

According to the Recommendation, the Disciplinary Committee found that the following facts were established: “Respondent represented Ms. Winborn, who was charged with simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling in the criminal proceeding State of Louisiana v. Emily Winborn, Case Number 498-791, Sec. A, of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Mr. Bode’s neighbor saw Ms. Winborn exiting Mr. Bode’s house carrying the black camera bag where he kept his gun. When Mr. Bode returned home after the neighbor called him, he discovered that his gun was gone. Ms. Winborn was charged with entering Mr. Bode’s home and stealing a gun. Respondent came to a restaurant Mr. Bode owns with his daughter and offered him $300 to drop the charges against Ms. Winborn. During the first visit Mr. Bode told Respondent that he had found the gun and that he would not drop the charges. The day before Ms. Winborn’s trial, Respondent came to the restaurant again and offered Mr. Bode $500 not to show up in court for Ms. Winborn’s trial. Ms. Winborn was convicted of the crime.” (emphasis supplied)

The Disciplinary Committee found that “(t)his matter came down to credibility. Mr. Bode was a credible witness, with no apparent motive to lie about his interactions with Respondent. For the most part, Respondent admitted to the facts as Mr. Bode related regarding the two visits at the restaurant. The significant divergence was that Respondent contended that the payment was only restitution, and whether Respondent offered $500 to induce Mr. Bode to fail to appear at the trial.”

“(A)fter hearing the testimony, observing the witnesses demeanors, and considering the logical interpretation of the interactions, the Committee finds that Respondent went to visit Mr. Bode at the restaurant where he worked and offered him $300 as payment if he would to agree to drop the charges against Ms. Winborn. Although Respondent calls the $300 an offer of restitution, it clearly was conditioned upon Mr. Bode agreeing to drop the charges. When Mr. Bode refused, he was not paid the ‘restitution.’ Moreover, payment for the loss of the gun was not necessary because Mr. Bode told Respondent that he had found the gun.”

“The second visit, which occurred ten days later and the day before the trial, included an increased offer of $500 as payment for not showing up on the day of trial. Although Respondent attempted to show that Mr. Bode’s memory was failing, the details he did remember – along with a lack of true motive to lie either at trial or the hearing – leads the Committee to believe Mr. Bode’s version of the facts.”

“Thus, clearly the initial $300 was offered not as “restitution,” but strictly as a bribe for Mr. Bode to dismiss the charges against Respondent’s client. In addition, the $500 was offered, on the day before the trial, and as a last resort, so that Mr. Bode would not appear at the trial and thus make it more likely that the charges would be dropped. Respondent’s conduct was a criminal act reflecting adversely on Respondent’s honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer, and was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. His testimony at the hearing also involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

The Disciplinary Committee recommended that the lawyer be disbarred. The Disciplinary Board adopted the Disciplinary Committee’s finding of fact and conclusions of law and finding that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) through (d). After confirming that “(i)t is well-settled that the baseline sanction for misconduct arising out of felony convictions involving bribery is disbarment” and discussing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the Disciplinary Board reduced the recommended discipline to a suspension of one year and one day, which would require a showing of rehabilitation.

Bottom line: According to the Louisiana Disciplinary Board Recommendation, this lawyer offered a bribe to a witness to “fail to appear at trial” and engaged in misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by denying that he offered the bribe. Notwithstanding these facts, the Board surprisingly reduced the recommended discipline from disbarment to a suspension of one year and one day. The Louisiana Supreme Court will now review the recommendation and issue a final disciplinary opinion.

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 discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false testimony, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions