Category Archives: Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality

ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 492 addresses lawyer’s obligations to prospective clients after obtaining “significantly harmful” information

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent American Bar Association (ABA) Formal Ethics Opinion 492, which addresses the obligations of lawyers to prospective clients, including confidentiality, and conflicts of interest, including potential disqualifying conflicts after the lawyer obtains “significantly harmful” information.  The link to ABA Formal Opinion 492 is here:  https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba-formal-opinion-492.pdf

The ABA issued Formal Ethics Opinion 492 on June 9, 2020.  The opinion addresses a lawyer’s obligations to prospective client and discusses who is a “prospective client”, the obligation to protect confidential information, disqualifying conflicts because of the acquisition of “significantly harmful” information, and limiting information during an initial consultation and avoiding the imputation of conflicts to the firm.

“A prospective client is a person who consults a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship. Model Rule 1.18 governs whether the consultation limits the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm from accepting a new client whose interests are materially adverse to the prospective client in a matter that is the same or substantially related to the subject of the consultation, even when no client-lawyer relationship results from the consultation. Under Model Rule 1.18 a lawyer is prohibited from accepting a new matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to the prior prospective client in the new matter.

“Model Rule 1.18(b) imposes a duty of confidentiality with respect to information learned during a consultation, even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues. It provides: Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal that information, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.”

“Whether information learned by the lawyer could be significantly harmful is a fact-based inquiry depending on a variety of circumstances including the length of the consultation and the nature of the topics discussed. The inquiry does not require the prior prospective client to reveal confidential information. Further, even if the lawyer learned information that could be significantly harmful to the prior prospective client in the new matter, the lawyer’s firm can accept the new matter if the lawyer is screened from the new matter or the prospective client provides informed consent, as set forth in Model Rule 1.18(d)(1) and (2).”

The opinion concludes that a lawyer who receives information from a prospective client that could be “significantly harmful” and then represents a client in the same or a substantially related matter where that client’s interests are materially adverse to those of the prospective client would violate Model Rule 1.18(c) unless the conflict is waived by the prospective client.

Bottom line:  This opinion provides detailed information to assist lawyers in analyzing ethics issues that may arise related to prospective clients when the lawyer obtains “significantly harmful” information and provides guidance on how to identify and address those issues and comply with the lawyer’s ethical obligations.

Stay safe 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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under ABA Model Rules, ABA Opinion 492- prospective clients and "significantly harmful" information, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Privilege, Prospective clients conflict of interest, Uncategorized

New Jersey lawyer suspended for, inter alia, revealing confidential information in review of former client’s business

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss recent New Jersey Supreme Court opinion which imposed a one year suspension on a lawyer for, inter alia, providing a negative public review of a client’s business on Yelp and disclosing confidential information in the review.  The case is: In the Matter of Brian LeBon Calpin (New Jersey Supreme Court No. D-67 083821).  The May 7, 2020 opinion is here:  http://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1129260

The NJ SC opinion essentially adopts the NJ Disciplinary Review Board Decision which found that the lawyer posted a negative public review of the client’s massage business on June 24, 2018 on the Yelp website after the client had posted public negative online reviews of his legal services.  The lawyer had ceased representing the client in “early summer 2017”.  The DRB Decision is here:  http://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1124239

According to the Decision, the lawyer’s review of the former client’s massage business on Yelp stated:

“Well, Angee is a convicted felon for fleeing the state with children. A wonderful parent. Additionally, she has been convicted of shoplifting from a supermarket. Hide your wallets well during a massage. Oops, almost forgot about the DWI conviction. Well, maybe a couple of beers during the massage would be nice.”

The Decision further states that, in his response to the ethics complaint, lawyer stated:

“As to the Yelp rating about (the former client’s) massage therapy business, I admit to same. I was very upset by [her] Yelp rating of my practice. This rating was made more than a year and a half after the conclusion of my representation. My disclosures, i.e. her arrests, were public information and I did not violate attorney client privilege. My position was that what was good for the goose was good for the gander. I do concede that I do not believe that the rating was my finest moment. However, it was not unethical. That posting has subsequently been taken down.”

The Decision found that, although the information posted by the lawyer may have been publicly available, the information was not generally known; therefore, the “generally known” exception in the New Jersey Bar rules regarding client confidentiality did not apply.  The decision also quoted ABA Formal Opinion 479 (December 15, 2017):  “[T]he phrase ‘generally known’ means much more than publicly available or accessible. It means that the information has already received widespread publicity.”

The Decision also found that the lawyer’s conduct in three other client matters violated ethics rules related to neglect, diligence, failure to keep clients informed, failure to deliver client funds or property, and failure to return client property after representation. The lawyer also told to a Bar investigator that he had sent a refund check to a former client, which was a misrepresentation.

The lawyer had prior discipline for “similar ethics infractions, evidencing his failure to learn from past mistakes: a June 19, 2014 reprimand for gross neglect, lack of diligence, and failure to communicate with a client, and a January 24, 2017 admonition for lack of diligence in a client matter.”

Bottom line:  This is another unfortunate example of a lawyer reacting badly to a client’s negative online review and including confidential (and not generally known) information in responding to a negative client review.  As I have said and written many times, lawyers are not permitted to include client confidential information in responding to negative online reviews that are in the public domain.

Stay safe and healthy and be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert 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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under ABA Formal Opinion 479 former client confidentiality, Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, attorney-client privilege, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidences and negative online client review, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer communication over internet- confidentiality, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics responding to negative online review complaint confidentiality, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer negative Yelp review of client- confidentiality, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyers and social media, misrepresentations, Uncategorized

Florida Bar Ethics Committee votes to publish proposed opinion providing guidance in responding to negative online reviews

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent vote by the Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee (PEC) to publish a proposed ethics advisory opinion providing guidance to lawyers in responding to negative online reviews and complaint for comment.  Proposed Ethics Advisory Opinion 20-1 is here: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/committee-adopts-ethics-opinion-regarding-online-reviews/

The PEC voted at its February 7, 2020 meeting to publish formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 20-1, which provides guidance to lawyers in responding to negative online reviews for comment by Florida Bar members.

The Florida Bar ethics staff previously issued Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049 in 2018 in response to a lawyer’s inquiry.  The BOG approved the staff opinion on June 15, 2018; however, since the opinion was a reply to a single lawyer, it was not published.  I discussed  Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049 provided a link to that opinion here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/florida-bar-professional-ethics-committee-approves-staff-opinion-addressing-lawyer-responses-to-negative-online-reviews/

That staff opinion was minimally revised by the PEC and will be published online and in print in The Florida News for Bar member comments. The proposed formal advisory opinion concludes:

“Therefore, if the inquirer chooses to respond to the negative online review and the inquirer does not obtain the former client’s informed consent to reveal confidential information, the inquirer must not reveal confidential information regarding the representation, but must only respond in a general way, such as that the inquirer disagrees with the client’s statements. The inquirer should not disclose that the court entered an order allowing the inquirer to withdraw because that is information relating to the client’s representation and the client did not give informed consent for the inquirer to disclose.”

The proposed advisory opinion states that Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6(c) provides 6 exceptions permitting or mandating that a lawyer reveal confidential client information; however, none of the exceptions addresses online reviews.  The proposed opinion also refers to the comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6, which states:

“A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client’s informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation….(t)he confidentiality rule applies not merely to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source.”

The proposed opinion states that the language in Texas Ethics Opinion 622 “would be an acceptable response” to negative online reviews:

“A lawyer’s duty to keep client confidences has few exceptions and in an abundance of caution I do not feel at liberty to respond in a point by point fashion in this forum. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that the post presents a fair and accurate picture of the events.”  “The (lawyer) also may state that the (lawyer) disagrees with the facts stated in the review.”

According to the Bar’s Notice, the PEC will consider any comments received at their meeting on Friday, June 19, 2020 in Orlando.

“Comments must contain the proposed advisory opinion number and clearly state the issues for the committee to consider. A written argument may be included explaining why the Florida Bar member believes the committee’s opinion is either correct or incorrect and may contain citations to relevant authorities. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than March 31, 2020.”

Bottom line:  Lawyers must be aware that negative online reviews do not fall within any of the exceptions which permit or require revealing confidential client information and, absent client informed consent, lawyers are not permitted to reveal confidential information in responding to the negative review.  In our digital and social media age, perhaps a change in the Bar Rule permitting such responses would be appropriate.

I will keep you advised 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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidences and negative online client review, Confidentiality, Florida Bar, Florida Bar ethics opinion responding to negative online review, Florida Bar Rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida proposed ethics opinion 20-1- response to negative online reviews, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer ethics responding to negative online review complaint confidentiality, Uncategorized

Proposed North Carolina Bar ethics opinion states that lawyers may only make “restrained” responses to negative online reviews

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent proposed North Carolina Bar 2020 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, which states that lawyers are prohibited from revealing confidential information in response to a negative online post; however, the lawyer can make a “proportional and restrained” response.  Proposed NC Bar 2020 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 is here:   https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/proposed-opinions/

At its meeting in January 2020, the North Carolina State Bar Council adopted an ethics opinion stating that lawyers may post “a proportional and restrained” response to negative online reviews by former clients, but are prohibited from disclosing confidential information.  North Carolina lawyers have until March 30, 2020 to comment on the proposed ethics opinion.

The proposed ethics opinion responds to an inquiry by a North Carolina lawyer who believed that some online comments by a former client were false. The lawyer believed he could rebut the allegations using confidential information.  The proposed ethics opinions states that lawyers are prohibited from revealing confidential information without client consent, or unless an exception applies.

The ethics opinion discusses the exception to the confidentiality rule that permit a lawyer to reveal confidential information to the extent the lawyer reasonably thinks is necessary to defend a criminal charge or civil claim based on the client’s conduct, to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between the lawyer and client, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding involving the lawyer’s representation of the client.

The opinion discusses what it calls the “self-defense” exception, which permits a lawyer to reveal confidential information to defend him or herself applies to legal claims and disciplinary charges arising in a civil, criminal, disciplinary or other proceeding and states that “(a) negative online review does not fall within these categories and, therefore, does not trigger the self-defense exception.”

Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, and New York Ethics Opinions have made similar conclusions.  My August 2018 blog on the Florida Bar Board of Governor’s approval of Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049, which states that a lawyer may post only a limited response to a negative online review that the lawyer said falsely accused her of theft and may not reveal attorney/client confidences is here:  https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/florida-bar-professional-ethics-committee-approves-staff-opinion-addressing-lawyer-responses-to-negative-online-reviews/.

Bottom line:  This proposed ethics opinion is consistent with other ethics opinions which have examined this issue, including Florida. Unless the exceptions to the rule are revised in the lawyer’s jurisdiction, lawyers will continue to be prohibited from providing confidential information in rebutting allegations in online reviews by clients or former clients.

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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidences and negative online client review, Confidentiality, Florida Bar ethics opinion responding to negative online review, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics responding to negative online review complaint confidentiality, Uncategorized

Two Ohio lawyers receive stayed six-month suspensions for violating client confidences while engaged in a personal relationship

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Ohio Supreme Court Order imposing a six month stayed suspension on two lawyers who violated client confidences while engaged in a personal romantic relationship.  The case style is: The Disciplinary Counsel v. Holmes and Kerr, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4308 and the opinion is here:  https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2018/2018-Ohio-4308.pdf

According to the stipulated facts, the lawyers began a romantic relationship after meeting at a conference in November 2014. They represented different public school districts and were employed by different law firms.  Between January 2015 and November 2016, the lawyers exchanged more than a dozen e-mails in which they disclosed confidential client information.

According to the opinion, one of the lawyers (Kerr) generally forwarded e-mails from her clients asking for documents to the other lawyer (Holmes), who then provided the legal documents that he had prepared for clients with similar requests.  According to the opinion, “In about one-third of these email exchanges, Holmes had ultimately completed Kerr’s work for her.”

The opinion further states that Holmes was terminated from his law firm in June 2016 after the disclosure of confidential client information was discovered.  A partner in Holmes’ law firm then filed a Bar complaint against Holmes and notified Kerr’s firm about the confidential e-mail exchanges.  Notwithstanding the termination and notification, the lawyers continued to trade information. Kerr resigned from her law firm in November 2016.

Both lawyers stipulated to a violation of two Bar rules: improper disclosure of confidential information, and conduct which adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.  The opinion states: “We agree that Holmes and Kerr engaged in the stipulated misconduct and that based on our precedent, a stayed six-month suspension is appropriate. We therefore adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreements.”

Bottom line: This is a rare example of lawyers who were involved in a personal relationship being disciplined for violating attorney/client confidentiality.  The Ohio disciplinary agency was advised of the lawyers’ conduct by a partner in one of the lawyer’s firm, and both lawyers stipulated that they had violated Bar rules related to confidentiality and conduct adversely reflecting the lawyer’s fitness to practice.  Unless there is an exception or the client consents, confidential information cannot be provided to another person or otherwise disseminated.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, attorney/client privilege, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer discipline for revealing client confidences in romantic relationship, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer in romantic relationship revealing client confidential information, Lawyer sanctions

Connecticut lawyer who was sued for malpractice and included client’s psychiatric records in court document suspended for 2 years

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent 2 year suspension of a Connecticut lawyer who was sued for legal malpractice and released his former client’s psychiatric records in retaliation and to embarrass the client.  The case is Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Jason E. Pearl, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, Order 418034, Docket No.: HHBCV186043301S.

The lawyer’s former client, Veronica Perakos, sued him for professional malpractice in December 2014.  According to the complaint, the client hired the lawyer in 2011 to defend her in a lawsuit her condominium association filed regarding alleged failure to pay common fees and monthly special assessment fees.  Her debt to the association was $22,358.00 and the lawyer was alleged to have failed to notify her about the risk of foreclosure if she did not make the monthly payments on the debt.

The lawsuit also claimed the lawyer did not explain to the client what happened after a court hearing, failed to give the client file to the client’s new lawyer in a timely manner, and told the new lawyer that the client’s foreclosure matter would be resolved if she placed the property on the market for a price set by the court.  The lawyer had previously been suspended for 120 days in 2013 for not complying with a random IOLTA audit and the lawsuit claimed that he also failed to notify the client of that audit.

According to court documents, approximately six weeks after the lawsuit was filed, the lawyer filed an electronically filed motion with the court asking that the client be declared “unfit to testify due to her psychiatric history, medical commitment, conservatorship and untruthfulness.” The client’s psychiatric records were also enclosed with the motion without the client’s permission.  According to media reports, the lawyer had represented the client on previous matters, which was how he obtained her medical records dating back to 2006.

The malpractice litigation resulted in a judgment for the client and, after reviewing the information and evidence regarding the publication of the client’s confidential psychiatric records, Superior Court Judge Joan Alexander found as follows:

The Court finds clear and convincing evidence that Jason E. Pearl violated Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. He engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice by his unauthorized public release of a former client’s psychiatric records. The Court finds that the respondent violated Rule 1.9 of the Professional Rules of Conduct in that his conduct was retaliatory and intended to embarrass his former client. As a result of these findings, the Court orders a 2 year suspension on his right to practice law effective immediately. The court orders that the respondent must successfully complete 20 hours of legal ethics training and file notice evidencing the completion of this training. The training must be attended in person and not online. The respondent also must comply with the requirements of Practice Book § 2-47B during his suspension. If the respondent seeks reinstatement to the bar after the period of suspension, he must comply with the procedures outlined in Practice Book § 2-53.

Bottom line:  This case involves a lawyer who was apparently upset that his client had filed a malpractice claim against him and he decided to make an “unauthorized public release of a former client’s psychiatric records”, which “ was retaliatory and intended to embarrass his former client.”

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, dishonesty, Former client confidentiality, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline e-filing confidentiality breach, Lawyer enclosing client's confidential psychiatric records in malpractice lawsuit, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer violating confidentiality by placing client medical records into public record

Florida Bar Professional Ethics Committee approves staff opinion addressing lawyer responses to negative online reviews

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee’s recent approval of Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049, which addresses lawyer responses to negative online reviews.

On June 15, 2018, the Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee unanimously approved Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049 which states that a lawyer may post a limited response to a negative online review that the lawyer says falsely accuses her of theft; however, the lawyer may not reveal attorney/client confidences.  The Staff Opinion is here:  file:///C:/Users/jcorsmeier/Downloads/PRR_Corsmeier_-_38049_KNS_responding_to_negative_online_review_PEC_approved.pdf.  The Professional Ethics Committee will not issue a separate opinion.

The lawyer stated in her inquiry that she received a negative online review and would like to respond to the former client’s negative review that the lawyer “took her money and ran” by using the language suggested in Texas Ethics Opinion 662 and adding an “objectively verifiable truthful statement” that the Court entered an order authorizing the lawyer to withdraw as counsel for the former client.

The lawyer stated that she believed the added language was “proportional and restrained, consistent with the Texas Ethics Opinion, directly addressed the allegations of the former client, and should be permissible under the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the First Amendment.”  The staff opinion found that the post would reveal confidential information without obtaining the former client’s consent and cited the comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6.

According to the staff opinion, “(a) fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client’s informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation…. The confidentiality rule applies not merely to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source.”

“The inquirer refers to Texas Ethics Opinion 622. That opinion explains that a lawyer may not respond to client’s negative internet review if the response discloses confidential information.  The opinion gives an example of a proportional and restrained response that does not reveal any confidential information:  A lawyer’s duty to keep client confidences has few exceptions and in an abundance of caution I do not feel at liberty to respond in a point by point fashion in this forum. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that the post presents a fair and accurate picture of the events.  The suggested language found in Texas Ethics Opinion 622 would be an acceptable response for the inquirer.”

“An attorney is not ethically barred from responding to an online review by a former client where the former client’s matter has concluded…(h)owever, the duty of confidentiality prevents the attorney from disclosing confidential information about the prior representation absent the client’s informed consent or waiver of confidentiality.”

In 2016, a Colorado lawyer was suspended for six months after he responded to a negative online review and revealed, among other things, that the client had bounced a check and committed unrelated felonies.  There have been other disciplinary cases where a lawyer has been sanctioned for revealing confidences in responding to a negative online review, including: In the Matter of Margrett A. Skinner, Case No. S14Y0661 (Ga. Supreme Court 5/19/14), where a Georgia lawyer received a reprimand for revealing confidences in responding to a negative online review, and In re John P. Mahoney, Bar Docket No. 2015-D141 (2015), where a lawyer received in formal admonishment in 2015.

Bottom line:  As I have blogged and advised in the past, lawyers are prohibited from revealing client confidences unless an exception to the Bar rules applies either requiring or permitting the disclosure.  Permissive exceptions include responding to a Bar complaint, defending a lawsuit filed against the lawyer, and defending against criminal charges involving the representation of a client.  A negative online review is not currently one of those exceptions.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidences and negative online client review, Florida Bar, Florida Bar ethics opinion responding to negative online review, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics responding to negative online review complaint confidentiality, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

ABA Formal Opinion 480 addresses lawyer/client confidentiality obligations related to lawyer blogs and other public commentary

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss ABA Formal Opinion 480, which was released on March 6, 2018 and addresses lawyer ethics and confidentiality obligations when engaging in blogging and other public commentary.  The ABA Formal Opinion is here: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba_formal_opinion_480.authcheckdam.pdf

The opinion initially sets forth the various types of lawyer public communications and commentary, including online publications such as blogs, listserves, online articles, website postings, and brief online statements or microblogs (such as Twitter®) that ‘followers’ (people who subscribe to a writer’s online musings) read. Lawyers continue to present education programs and discuss legal topics in articles and chapters in traditional print media such as magazines, treatises, law firm white papers, and law reviews. They also make public remarks in online informational videos such as webinars and podcasts (collectively ‘public commentary’).”

The opinion provides important information regarding the broad scope of lawyer/client confidentiality under the rule, the limited exceptions to the rule, and whether a lawyer can pose a “hypothetical” to avoid violating the rule.  The information is below with relevant portions in bold:

This confidentiality rule “applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source.”  In other words, the scope of protection afforded by Rule 1.6 is far broader than attorney-client privileged information.

Unless one of the exceptions to Rule 1.6(a) is applicable, a lawyer is prohibited from commenting publicly about any information related to a representation. Even client identity is protected under Model Rule 1.6.  Rule 1.6(b) provides other exceptions to Rule 1.6(a).  However, because it is highly unlikely that a disclosure exception under Rule 1.6(b) would apply to a lawyer’s public commentary, we assume for this opinion that exceptions arising under Rule 1.6(b) are not applicable.

Significantly, information about a client’s representation contained in a court’s order, for example, although contained in a public document or record, is not exempt from the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6.  The duty of confidentiality extends generally to information related to a representation whatever its source and without regard to the fact that other may be aware of or have access to such knowledge.

A violation of Rule 1.6(a) is not avoided by describing public commentary as “hypothetical” if there is a reasonable likelihood that a third party may ascertain the identity or situation of the client from the facts set forth in the hypothetical.  Hence, if a lawyer uses a hypothetical when offering public commentary, the hypothetical should be constructed so that there is no such likelihood.

The opinion concludes that “(l)awyers who blog or engage in other public commentary may not reveal information relating to a representation, including information contained in a public record, unless authorized by a provision of the Model Rules.”

Bottom line:  This ABA opinion addresses the ethics issues related to lawyer blogs and public commentary and client confidentiality and provides guidance.  The opinion is not binding; however, it provides important information and the analysis is applicable in most, if not all jurisdictions, including Florida.  Lawyers should consult the rules and ethics opinions of their jurisdiction for further guidance.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under ABA formal opinions, ABA Opinion 480- guidance re confidentiality when lawyers blog or engage in public commentary, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer blogs, Lawyer communication over internet- confidentiality, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

Florida Supreme Court specifically incorporates lawyer-fiduciary privilege into the Florida Evidence Code, F.S. §90.5021

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion adopting and incorporating lawyer/fiduciary privilege into Florida Evidence Code, F.S. §90.5021.  The Supreme Court opinion adopting the revisions is In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code – 2017 Out of Cycle Report, Case No. SC17-1005 (January 25, 2018) and the court’s opinion is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc17-1005.pdf

As background, in 2011, the Florida Legislature enacted F.S. §90.5021, which applies the privilege to attorney communications with a client who is a trustee, personal representative, or guardian to the same extent as if the client were not acting as a fiduciary.  The statute was intended to end the issue of whether beneficiaries should be given access to information and advice given to fiduciaries by their lawyers and the statute appeared to confirm that they should not be provided such information and advice.

Also in 2011, the Florida Bar’s Probate Rules Committee petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to adopt an amendment to Florida Probate Rule 5.240(b)(2), which provides the requirements for notices of estate administration.  The amendment required the notice to include a statement that “the fiduciary lawyer-client privilege in section 90.5021, Florida Statutes, applies with respect to the personal representative and any attorney employed by the personal representative.”   This probate rule was approved by the Florida Supreme Court, effective September 28, 2011.

The Florida Evidence Code provisions which contain substantive law are reviewed and implemented by the Florida legislature and the procedural provisions are reviewed and implemented by the Florida Supreme Court; therefore, the court does not review and implement substantive law provisions.

In 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt proposed F.S. §90.5021, which would have protected attorney/fiduciary privilege in the Florida Statutes.  This created a conflict with the previously approved Florida Probate Rule, which applied the privilege created by the 2011 F.S. §90.5021 to fiduciaries, which caused uncertainty.

To attempt to resolve this uncertainty, The Florida Bar’s Probate Rules Committee and the Code and Rules of Evidence Committee filed an out of cycle report and petition requesting the Court to resolve the conflict and implement the statutory provision to the extent that it is procedural.  In response to that petition, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion adopting §90.5021, Fla. Stat., which provides that the attorney-client privilege applies even when the client is a fiduciary to the extent that it is procedural.  The opinion stated that the provision “is effective retroactively to June 21, 2011, the date it became law.”

Bottom line:  I have discussed this issue and the uncertainty with lawyers and in seminars since the issue arose in 2014.  This opinion resolves the uncertainty and protects the lawyer/fiduciary privilege along with Florida Probate Rule 5.240(b)(2) and it is unlikely that the legislature will challenge the statutory provision as substantive.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under .S. Supreme Court, Attorney fiduciary privilege, attorney-client privilege, attorney/client privilege, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, Florida Bar, Florida Statutes lawyer fiduciary privilege, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier

Florida Bar’s former president responds and opposes Bar’s motion to disqualify him from TIKD v. Florida Bar/Ticket Clinic antitrust suit

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert Update which will discuss the recent responses to the Bar’s Motion to Disqualify by its former president, Ramon Abadin.  The Response claims, inter alia, that the information that received was public record; that even if it was confidential, it is not substantially related to the matter; he has no duty of loyalty; that the Bar did not object to his representation in the UPL matters; and that he will not be a necessary witness in the lawsuit.  The case is TIKD Services LLC, v. The Florida Bar, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-24103-MGC (U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida-Miami Division).

As I previously blogged, on December 1, 2017, The Florida Bar filed a Motion to Disqualify Ramón A. Abadin alleging that, during his 2015-16 term as president, he “was provided attorney-client and attorney work-product communications and advice about and involving the specific antitrust issues and allegations asserted in this action”, including an amicus brief that was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015).  In that opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the N.C. dental board did not have state action immunity because its decisions were final and not subject to review. The Florida Bar joined in an amicus brief in that case arguing state action immunity should apply.

The former Bar president and TIKD have now filed responses in opposition to the Bar’s Motion to Disqualify.  In his “Response on Behalf of Plaintiff’s Counsel Ramon Abadin in Opposition to The Florida Bar Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law” dated December 19, 2017, Mr. Abadin states:

Disqualification of Mr. Abadin is not warranted for the following reasons:

  1. Mr. Abadin is not in violation of specific Bar Rules regarding disqualification based upon prior service with the Bar;
  1. The alleged “confidential” information received when Mr. Abadin was an executive officer of The Florida Bar or a member of the Board of Governors regarding the Bar’s response to the Dental Examiners case (other than legal advice) is public information;
  1. Even assuming the information received by Mr. Abadin is confidential, such information is not relevant to the cause of action in this lawsuit and, therefore, is not substantially related to this matter and would not be used to the Bar’s disadvantage;
  1. Mr. Abadin’s fiduciary duty of loyalty to The Florida Bar ended when his service as President was complete, which was prior to the time Plaintiff was formed;
  1. The Florida Bar did not object to Mr. Abadin’s representation of Plaintiff in connection with the Bar’s UPL investigation; and
  1. Mr. Abadin is not a necessary witness, and Plaintiff does not intend to call Mr. Abadin as a witness on its behalf.

Bottom line:  As I previously stated, this is one of the first cases in Florida which directly alleges that The Florida Bar’s procedures violate the Sherman Antitrust Act based upon the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.  As an added element of drama, the Bar has filed a motion to disqualify Ramon Abadin, its recent former president, from representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Bar and Abadin and TIKD have now filed responses in opposition to the motion.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, attorney/client privilege, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, Florida Bar TIKD antitrust lawsuit, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer antitrust, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, North Carolina Dental Board, North Carolina dental whitening case and UPL, TIKD v. Florida Bar antitrust federal lawsuit, TIKD v. Florida Bar motion to disqualify ex-president