Category Archives: Florida Bar

Florida 4th DCA finds fee agreement arbitration clause unenforceable since the clause failed to comply with Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i)

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Florida 4th District Court of Appeal opinion which held that an arbitration clause in a fee agreement was unenforceable since it violated Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) by failing to advise the client to consider consulting independent counsel.  The case style is Lindsay Owens v. Katherine L. Corrigan & KLC Law P.A., No. 4D17-2740, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 9174 (Fourth DCA June 27, 2018) and the opinion is here: https://www.4dca.org/content/download/244172/2149993/file/172740_1709_06272018_09290264_i.pdf

According to the opinion, the plaintiff filed a three-count legal malpractice action against the defendants alleging negligent representation in a dependency case, which caused her to lose custody of her children. The defendants moved to dismiss the litigation since the plaintiff had signed a fee agreement requiring her to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. The fee agreement included the following arbitration clause:

Any controversy, dispute or claim arising out of or relating to our fees, charges, performance of legal services, obligations reflected in this letter, or other aspects of our representation shall be resolved through binding arbitration in Broward County, Florida, in accordance with the Fee Arbitration Rule (Chapter 14) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. [YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BY AGREEING TO ARBITRATION YOU ARE RELINQUISHING YOUR RIGHT TO BRING AN ACTION IN COURT AND TO A JURY TRIAL.]

The trial court dismissed the litigation, finding that the parties had “entered into an agreement to arbitrate that was not waived.”  On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court’s order violated her right to due process by denying her a proper forum; the arbitration clause in the fee agreement was unenforceable because it violated Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) by failing to include the independent counsel notice required under the rule; and the arbitration provision was ambiguous as to whether it required arbitration of a legal malpractice claim.

The opinion addressed plaintiff’s Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) argument, finding it to be dispositive. The opinion stated that there are three elements for a court to analyze in deciding whether the arbitration of a dispute will be required: whether there is a valid written agreement to arbitrate; whether an arbitrable issue exists; and whether the right to arbitration was waived.

Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) prohibits lawyers from making an agreement with a client for mandatory arbitration of fee disputes without providing the written Notice required by the rule, which includes advising the client that he or she should consider consulting with another lawyer and obtaining independent legal advice. Rule 4-1.5(i) provides:

(i) Arbitration Clauses. A lawyer shall not make an agreement with a potential client prospectively providing for mandatory arbitration of fee disputes without first advising that person in writing that the potential client should consider obtaining independent legal advice as to the advisability of entering into an agreement containing such mandatory arbitration provisions. A lawyer shall not make an agreement containing such mandatory arbitration provisions unless the agreement contains the following language in bold print: 

NOTICE: This agreement contains provisions requiring arbitration of fee disputes. Before you sign this agreement you should consider consulting with another lawyer about the advisability of making an agreement with mandatory arbitration requirements. Arbitration proceedings are ways to resolve disputes without use of the court system. By entering into agreements that require arbitration as the way to resolve fee disputes, you give up (waive) your right to go to court to resolve those disputes by a judge or jury. These are important rights that should not be given up without careful consideration. 

The defendants argued that Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) did not apply since there was no fee dispute; however, the opinion rejected that argument and found that, although the arbitration clause might require arbitration of matters other than fee disputes, the clause clearly violated the Florida Bar rule by failing to provide the required notice.

The opinion held that the fee agreement violated Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) and was unenforceable on its face since it required mandatory arbitration of future fee disputes without giving plaintiff the required written notice that the client “should consider obtaining independent legal advice as to the advisability of entering into an agreement containing such mandatory arbitration provisions.”

Bottom line:  This Florida appellate opinion held that mandatory arbitration clauses in fee agreements must comply with Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) and, as a part of that notice, the client must also be advised in writing to consider consulting with independent counsel.  If the clause fails to comply with these requirements, it is rendered unenforceable.

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

NO

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer fee agreements mandatory arbitration, Mandatory arbitration Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i), Mandatory arbitration in fee agreement unenforceable as violation of Bar Rule 4-1.5(i)

Referee recommends that former Florida judge who accepted Tampa Bay Rays tickets be suspended for 90 days and placed on probation

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Report of Referee which recommends that former Lee County Judge John Lakin, who was alleged to have improperly accepted tickets to Tampa Bay Rays baseball games, be suspended from practice for 90 days and be placed on probation for one year.  The case is The Florida Bar v. John Francis Lakin, SC17-542.  The June 25, 2018 Report of the Referee is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4564632-Referee-Report-Lakin.html

The Judicial Qualification Commission charged the judge with misconduct in 2016 alleging, inter alia, that he had requested and received Tampa Bay Rays tickets from a law firm in 2015 while presiding over a pending case in which the law firm represented one of the parties.  A jury ruled in favor of opposing party; however, the judge subsequently reversed that verdict in favor of the law firm’s client.  Five of the tickets that the judge received were given to him the day before he reversed the jury verdict.  The judge denied that the receipt of the tickets influenced his actions and later retired from the bench and went into private practice.

The Florida Bar filed a Complaint in March 2017 alleging that the lawyer violated Bar Rules related to dishonesty, deceitfulness, misrepresentation and/or fraud.  The referee assigned to hear the Bar matter recommended that the former judge’s law license be suspended for 90 days, and that he be placed on supervised probation one year, complete the Bar’s practice and professionalism enhancement program, “speak to new judges” about the circumstances, and pay the Bar’s costs of $5,244.00.

Under the Florida Bar rules, the referee’s report will now be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court, which will render a final disciplinary opinion.  The judge and The Florida Bar can file a petition with the Court to review the findings and file briefs.

Bottom line:  This former judge accepted tickets from lawyers who were representing a party before him on a pending case and, soon after receiving the tickets, made a ruling which favored that law firm’s clients.   Even if the tickets did not influence the judge’s decision, the circumstances would certainly seem to create an appearance of impropriety and an arguable violation of the Judicial Canons.  The referee has now recommended that the judge be found guilty of Florida Bar Rule violations and suspended from practicing law for 90 days.  The Florida Supreme Court will now decide whether the referee’s findings will be upheld.

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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, Former judge lawyer discipline accepting gifts while judge from party's lawyer, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge ethics accepting gifts, Judicial ethics, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Florida lawyer disbarred for soliciting and having sex with 2 clients while they were incarcerated in jail

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion disbarring a lawyer who had solicited and sex with 2 clients in they were incarcerated in jail.  The case is The Florida Bar v. Blackburn, No. SC17-1514 and the opinion is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc17-1514.pdf

The Florida Bar’s complaint alleged that the lawyer visited the 2 female clients in jail in Duval County on September 3, 2016.  He deposited money in one client’s bank account to pay for the sex and promised another client free or discounted legal services in exchange for sex.  The lawyer was arrested and pled no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge in the underlying criminal matter on May 25, 2017.

According to media reports, the lawyer showed the clients pornographic images before having sexual contact with them.  One of the clients said then made sexual advances towards her by touching her and forcing her to touch him.  Jail employees became suspicious when they noticed that the lights were out in the room. Criminal investigators also obtained a recorded telephone call that one of the clients made to her friend from the jail explaining what happened.

The Florida Bar and the lawyer entered into a consent agreement for an 18 month suspension with the conditions that the lawyer attend the Florida Bar’s Ethics School, contact Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. (FLA, Inc.) to schedule an evaluation and abide by all recommendations made by FLA, Inc., and pay the Bar’s costs of $1,688.51 before he could be reinstated.  The referee approved the agreement; however, the Court, in a unanimous opinion, disbarred the lawyer.  The lawyer had previously been suspended for 30 days in December 2014 for minor misconduct related to his handling of a child custody case.

The May 24, 2018 opinion states:

“Furthermore, the Court has moved toward imposing harsher sanctions, see Florida Bar v. Herman, 8 So. 3d 1100, 1108 (Fla. 2009), and has stated that it ‘will strictly enforce the rule against lawyers engaging in sexual conduct with a client that exploits the lawyer-client relationship.’ Fla. Bar v. Bryant, 813 So. 2d 38, 44 (Fla. 2002); see Fla. Bar v. Samaha, 557 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 1990) (‘Even the slightest hint of sexual coercion or intimidation directed at a client must be avoided at all costs.’).

“In summary, evidenced by this Court’s case law, under no circumstances should an attorney representing a client expose that client to unwanted sexual relations of any kind. Respondent’s conduct, which exploited his clients’ circumstances for his own personal benefit, ‘breeds contempt and distrust of lawyers,’ ‘demonstrates severe moral turpitude,’ and such actions ‘are wholly inconsistent with approved professional standards.’ McHenry, 605 So. 2d at 461.”

Bottom line:  This lawyer engaged in highly improper and criminal conduct and consented to an 18 month suspension; however, the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with that agreement and imposed disbarment.

Be careful out there.

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, advice and representation of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms.  If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license. 

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me at jcorsmeier@jac-law.com.  You can find my law firm on the web at www.jac-law.com. In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida.  I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.

You are receiving this ETHICS ALERT since you are a current or former client or you have requested that this Update be sent to you.  Please note that you may opt in or out of receiving this ETHICS ALERT any time.  If you would like to discontinue receipt of this ETHICS ALERT or if you would like to begin receiving it, simply send me an e-mail to me advising of your request.

If there are others at your firm who would like to be included on the distribution list, please feel free to forward this update to them or let us know in an email.  If you would like to forward this Ethics Alert to any person or entity please feel free do so as long as it is not for personal gain and you forward the entire email, including all contact information and disclaimers. 

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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sex with client, Lawyer sex with client in jail, Lawyer soliciting sex with client in jail

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors considers rule revisions prohibiting misleading Google ad words and permitting credit charges to clients

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the Board of Governor’s review of potential revisions to Florida Bar Rules 4-7.13, which would prohibit misleading words and phrases in Google ad words, and revisions to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(h), which would permit lawyers to charge a client the actual cost of accepting a credit payment.

The Bar Board of Governor’s backup materials regarding proposed revised Bar Rule 4-1.5(h) indicate that the basis for the proposed rule change is a potential allegation of an improper restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Bar’s recent summaries of the proposed rule revisions and their status in the BOG review process are below.

PROPOSED ADVERTISING RULE CHANGES 

The Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics will be considering a request for a rule amendment (to Rule 4-7.13) that would state it is inherently misleading or deceptive for a lawyer to intentionally use, or arrange for the use of, the name of a lawyer not in the same firm or the name of another law firm as words or phrases that trigger the display of the lawyer’s advertising on the Internet or other media, including directly or through a group advertising program. For example, the proposal would ban the purchase of another lawyer’s name in Google ad words. The Board’s Citizens Advisory Committee also supports the amendment, stating that the practice is misleading, particularly to vulnerable consumers. 

FINAL ACTION ON CREDIT SERVICE CHARGES 

The Board will be taking final action on a proposed rule change that would delete the current prohibition against charging a service charge for client’s use of a credit plan and allow lawyers to charge the actual charge imposed on the lawyer by the credit plan. Rule 4-1.5(h) currently permits lawyers to accept credit cards to pay for fees and costs, but prohibits lawyers from charging the client the credit card fee charged to the lawyer as a vendor.

Bottom line:  Proposed revised Rule 4-7.13, which would prohibit misleading Google ad words, would be consistent with other jurisdictions that have considered the issue.  Proposed revised Rule 4-1.5(h), which would permit a lawyer to require the client to pay the actual credit card charges would reverse the prior rule, which specifically prohibited requiring the client to pay such merchant charges.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Bar antitrust, Bar regulation and antitrust, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule permitting lawyers to charge credit card fees to clients, Florida Bar rule using GoogleAds words to misdirect to another firm, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer antitrust, Lawyer charging credit card fees to client, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer using GoogleAd words to misdirect users

Florida Supreme Court suspends two lawyers for conflict of interest Bar Rule violations under “hot potato doctrine”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida suspending two Florida lawyers for 30 days for violating Bar Rules related to conflicts of interest under what is being called the “hot potato” doctrine. The cases are: The Florida Bar v. Steven Kent Hunter, Case No.: SC16-1006, TFB No. 2014-70,728(11C) and The Florida Bar v. Philip Maurice Gerson, Case No.: SC16-1009, TFB No. 2014-70,729(11C).  The April 11, 2018 Supreme Court opinion is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2016/1006/2016-1006_disposition_141625_d31a.pdf

The Florida Supreme Court opinion suspended the two lawyers for 30 days each for seeking payments for their clients from a scientific institute created in a class action tobacco settlement notwithstanding objections from their previous clients.  The opinion found that the lawyers violated Florida Bar Rules 4-1.7 (conflict of interest – current clients), and 4-1.9 (conflict of interest – former clients) by seeking relief adverse to the clients’ interests.  The case involved the so called “hot potato doctrine”, which was established in a March 27, 2014 Florida Supreme Court opinion involving the same lawyers.

The 2014 Supreme Court opinion quashed a Third District Court of Appeals opinion reversing a trial court order disqualifying the lawyers on the same underlying facts as the 2018 Bar case.  That opinion stated:  “Additionally, with this opinion, we ask The Florida Bar to investigate whether any Florida Rules of Professional Conduct were violated during the underlying proceedings or during the presentation of this case to this Court.  The case is Patricia Young et al. vs. Norva Achenbauch, et al., Case No. SC12-988, and the March 27, 2014 opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc12-988.pdf

In Young, the Court said that a lawyer who has a conflict of interest between two current clients cannot avoid the current-client conflict rule (4-1.7) by dropping one client “like a hot potato.”  Before that opinion, it was argued that a client who a lawyer dropped because of a conflict of interest became a former client under Bar Rule 4-1.9, which is potentially less restrictive.

The underlying litigation began with a putative class-action lawsuit filed by a different lawyer on behalf of a number of flight attendants alleging damages for second hand smoke inhalation. That case settled with no compensation to class members; however, the settlement provided that $300 million would be paid to create a foundation sponsoring scientific research on cigarette smoking.  The settlement also allowed individual suits for compensatory damages by class members, as long as those claims were not based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation.  The lawyers were among the lawyers who took on individual suits by flight attendants.

The referee found in his report that the lawyers (and the other lawyers) were “wholly unsuccessful” in the individual cases, partly because class members could not prove causation.  The referee also found that, after the unsuccessful lawsuit, the lawyers then turned to “Plan B”, which was to negotiate payments to class members from the foundation. Two of Gerson’s former clients sent letters to the foundation stating they objected to any plan to undercut the foundation’s activities and funding.  Hunter, the other lawyer, received an objection from a foundation board member who he had previously represented in one of individual lawsuits, and who was being paid $60,000 annually to serve on the foundation board.

According to the referee’s report, Gerson believed the letters were solicited to stop the petition to approve a distribution from the foundation. Gerson and Hunter then withdrew from representing anyone who had voiced an objection, and filed a petition alleging that the institute had substantially deviated from its approved purpose and had misused settlement funds.

The institute and the objectors then filed a petition to disqualify the lawyers because of a conflict of interest and the disqualification issue was addressed in the Florida Supreme Court’s 2014 opinion, which created the so called “hot potato” doctrine.  The referee found that the 2014 opinion was binding in the ethics case; however, the referee recommended only an admonishment, finding that neither lawyer had any prior disciplinary record, the case involved legal issues that were unsettled before the 2014 Supreme Court decision, and the issue of whether the petition sought relief adverse to class members was “fairly debatable.”

The Florida Supreme Court opinion approved the referee’s findings of fact and the recommendation that the lawyers be found guilty of violating Florida Bar Rule 4-1.7; however, the opinion rejected the recommendation that the lawyers be found not guilty of violating Bar Rule 4-1.9, and found both lawyers guilty of violating that rule. The opinion also disapproved the referee’s recommendation of an admonishment and suspended both lawyers for 30 days.

Bottom line:  This is an unusual case where the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in an underlying case and sent the case to The Florida Bar for investigation.  The opinion relied on the court’s previous finding in the civil case and suspended the lawyers, even though the referee found the conflict to be “fairly debatable”.

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 Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Conflict of Interest "hot potato" doctrine, Disqualification, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, Grounds for lawyer withdrawal, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conflict of interest, Lawyer conflict of interest former clients, Lawyer conflict of interest- current clients, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer disqualification, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Florida Supreme Court rejects Bar proposed rule amendment on resolution of extraordinary liens in contingency matters

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert update blog which will discuss the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of a proposed amendment to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(f) which would have permitted a lawyer to retain and pay another lawyer (or non-lawyer entity) to resolve extraordinary liens in contingency matters and pay that lawyer’s fee from the settlement proceeds.  I previously blogged about the proposed revisions to Rule 4-1.5(f) in my 6/6/13, 9/5/13, and 12/14/15 Ethics Alerts.

The October 6, 2016 Florida Supreme Court opinion rejected the Bar’s proposed amendment to Rule 4-1.5(f) which would have specifically permitted the lawyer/client to retain an “extraordinary lien and subrogation lawyer” to resolve extraordinary liens and be paid a fee by the client beyond the contingent fee.  The Florida Supreme Court opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2016/sc16-104.pdf

In rejecting the Florida Bar’s proposed amendment to 4-1.5(f), the opinion stated:

On balance, we wish to reemphasize that lawyers representing clients in personal injury, wrongful death, or other cases where there is a contingent fee should, as part of the representation, also represent those clients in resolving medical liens and subrogation claims related to the underlying case. This should be done at no additional charge to the client beyond the maximum contingency fee, even if the attorney outsources this work to another attorney or non-attorney.

Although it may be true that, given the increased complexity of modern litigation, there will be some cases where the amount of work required to resolve a lien is more than initially anticipated, the notion of the percentage fee contract contemplates that there will be some cases that are profitable for the lawyer handling the claim and others that are unprofitable. That risk and reward is built into the contingency fee contract. 

If the circumstances of a particular case are such that the fee generated under the contingency fee agreement is expected to be insufficient for the work of resolving any outstanding lien, the attorney and client can seek leave of court pursuant to rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B)(ii) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to obtain an increased fee appropriate for the circumstances of the specific case.  (emphasis supplied).

Bottom line:  Pursuant to the language in the Court’s opinion, lawyers should be wary of participating in an agreement with a third party in which the client would pay a percentage of any reduction in the lien amount or any other payment for the reduction/resolution of the lien.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert blog is for informational purposes only, 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.

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

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules.  If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited.  Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Bar proposed rule amendment on resolution of extraordinary liens in contingency matters, Contingency fee agreements, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, lawyer excessive fee, Lawyer excessive fees, Lawyer fee agreements, Lawyer retaining separate counsel and payment over contingency fee, Resolution of liens in contingency fee matters, Supreme Court rejection of Bar proposed rule amendment on resolution of extraordinary liens in contingency matters

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors will consider ethics opinion addressing fee arrangements of qualifying providers and participating lawyers

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Florida Bar Board of Governor’s (BOG) direction to its ethics committee to prepare a draft advisory opinion addressing fee arrangements between qualifying providers and participating lawyers which comply with amended Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22, which substantially revises the requirements for qualifying providers.  The amended rule becomes effective on April 30, 2018.  The Supreme Court opinion implementing the amended rule (and others) is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc16-1470.pdf

The BOG directed its Review Committee on Professional Ethics to consider a proposed advisory opinion after receiving an inquiry by a Florida Bar member.  The BOG committee will consider the opinion at a meeting scheduled for May 18, 2018, from 1-3 p.m. at the Westin hotel in Key West and the draft opinion will be Proposed Advisory Opinion 17-2.

There is currently no draft opinion; however, the proposed advisory opinion will address different types of fee arrangements between for-profit qualifying providers and lawyer referral services who are otherwise in compliance with Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and participating lawyers. The Florida Bar rules prohibit lawyers from sharing fees with private for-profit qualifying providers.

The draft advisory opinion may address various fee arrangements, including:

  1. set fees paid to the qualifying provider on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis;
  2. set fees paid to the qualifying provider for each case referred to the participating lawyer;
  3. set fees paid to the qualifying provider for each case referred to a participating lawyer depending upon the type of matter (e.g., personal injury, family law);
  4. set fees paid to the qualifying provider for each case accepted by the participating lawyer;
  5. set fees paid to the qualifying provider for each case accepted by the participating lawyer depending on the type of matter (e.g., personal injury, family law);
  6. fees paid to the qualifying provider based upon the perceived value of the case referred to the participating lawyer;
  7. set fees paid to the qualifying provider depending upon the perceived value of a type of matter referred to participating lawyers; and
  8. fees paid to the qualifying provider which are a percentage of the recovery or percentage of the fee charged by the participating lawyer.

Pursuant to Florida Bar Procedures, Florida Bar members may comment on the proposed opinion.  Any comments must contain Proposed Advisory Opinion number 17-2, must clearly state the issues for the committee to consider, may offer suggestions for additional fee arrangements to be addressed by the proposed advisory opinion, and may include a proposed conclusion. 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 30 days from the notice in the April 15, 2018 issue of The Florida Bar News.

Bottom line:  The amended rule substantially change the current rules related to lawyer referrals and the Board of Governors has now initiated the process of identifying various fee arrangements between lawyers and qualifying providers which may or may not comply with the new rules.  Any lawyers who participate in (or are considering participating in) referrals from a private entity should carefully review the new rules, since lawyers can be prosecuted if the referral service (qualifying provider) fails to comply with the amended Bar rule(s).

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under 2018 Florida lawyer referral qualifying provider rule revisions, 2018 Florida lawyer referral service matching service rule revisions, Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Bar ethics opinion qualifying provider- lawyer fees, Florida Bar matching services, Florida ethics opinion 17-2- lawyer referrals by private referral matching services, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer independent professional judgment- AVVO and matching services, Lawyer matching services Avvo, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer Referral Services, Lawyer responsibilities AVVO and Linkedin