Category Archives: Florida Bar

Florida UPL Committee will consider New Jersey lawyer’s request for formal advisory opinion regarding remote practice from Florida

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss a New Jersey lawyer’s request for formal advisory opinion regarding remote practice related to non-Florida matters from his Florida home.  The lawyer’s request for the formal UPL opinion is here: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2019/12/Restaino_Request.pdf

The Florida Bar has provided notice that the Bar’s UPL Standing Committee will consider a New Jersey lawyer’s request for a formal advisory opinion on whether it constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for the lawyer, who is a Florida resident employed by a New Jersey law firm which has no place of business or office in Florida, to work remotely from his Florida home only on matters that concern federal intellectual property rights not Florida law) and without any public presence or profile in Florida as an attorney.

The Bar’s UPL Committee will hold a public hearing on February 7, 2020, at the Hyatt Regency Orlando Hotel, 9801 International Drive, Orlando, FL 32819 beginning at 9:00 a.m., to receive input on the question and testimony from interested individuals.  Written testimony can also be sent to The Florida Bar, UPL Dept., 651 E. Jefferson St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, or by e-mail before the hearing.

The February 7 hearing is the first step in the UPL formal advisory opinion process and, after the hearing, the committee will decide whether to issue a proposed opinion.  The committee has not previously considered the question and is not required to issue an opinion after the hearing.

Bottom line:  If the Florida Bar’s UPL Committee renders a formal opinion, it should provide guidance on the issue and any proposed opinion by the committee will be advisory only.

I will follow the issue and 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.

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, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rules remote practice by out of state lawyer, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Uncategorized, UPL Committee opinion re remote practice from Florida

Proposed Comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-7.18 would permit exchange of contact information at business events and on business related social media

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the proposed revisions to the Comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-7.18 which would permit the exchange of contact information at business events and on business-related social media, with caveats. The proposed revised language is on the agenda for review and final approval by the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) at its meeting on January 31, 2020 in Tallahassee.

The BOG’s Professional Ethics Committee proposed additional language in the Comment to Bar Rule 4-7.18, Direct Contact With Prospective Clients which would specifically permit the exchange of contact information at business events and on business-related social media.  The proposed Comment language also cautions that lawyers should not discuss a specific legal matter if the prospective client initiates it, “and defer further discussion to a more appropriate location” if the discussion would “endanger” a prospective client’s confidentiality.

According to the BOG meeting agenda, the justification for the amendment is that “(t)he proposed commentary recognizes that lawyers frequently exchange contact information at business-related events and on business-related social media platforms. These events are usually at least in part to facilitate networking, the initiation of the exchange of contacted information is expected at these events, the lawyer normally would not know the prospective client has the need for specific legal services, and the prospective client would normally be a sophisticated user of legal services and less likely to be unduly influenced by the request.”

The complete proposed Comment language is below:

Permissible Contact

A lawyer may initiate the routine mutual exchange of contact information with prospective clients who are attending the same business or professional conference or meeting or business-related social gathering if the lawyer initiates no further discussion of a specific legal matter. Similarly, a lawyer may initiate the exchange of contact information and profiles via a specific social media platform that is established for the purpose of businesses and professionals exchanging this type of information if the lawyer initiates no discussion of specific legal matters. If a prospective client then initiates discussion of a specific legal matter, the lawyer should decline to discuss the matter at the initial contact and defer further discussion to a more appropriate location when the discussion would endanger a prospective client’s confidentiality. Lawyers should not interpret the above to allow a lawyer who knows a person has a specific legal problem to go to a specific conference or meeting where that prospective client will be in attendance in order to initiate the exchange of contact information. An accident scene, a hospital room of an injured person, or a doctor’s office are not business or professional conferences or meetings within the meaning of the discussion above.

Bottom line:  If implemented, the additional language in the Comment would clarify that lawyers can exchange contact information with potential clients at business events and on business-related social media however, it will caution that lawyers should not discuss a specific legal matter if the prospective client initiates it and if the discussion would compromise a prospective client’s confidentiality, the lawyer should defer discussion of the matter to a more appropriate location”.

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 Communication with clients, Confidentiality, Florida Bar, Florida Bar Rule 4-7.18 Comment- communication with potential clients business meetings and business social media, Florida Bar Rules, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer communication with potential clients, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Uncategorized

Referee recommends dismissal of Florida Bar UPL Petition against TIKD and oral argument has been scheduled before Supreme Court

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert with an update on the status of The Florida Bar’s Petition alleging that the TIKD business model constitutes UPL and discuss the referee’s report recommending dismissal of the petition and the oral argument scheduled for March 2020.  The case is: The Florida Bar v. TIKD Services LLC and Christopher Riley, Case No.: SC18-149, Lower Tribunal No(s).: 20174035 (11B); 20174045 (11B).  The January 19, 2019 report of referee recommending dismissal is here: https://www.responsivelaw.org/uploads/1/0/8/6/108638213/report_of_referee.pdf and the Florida Supreme Court’s Order scheduling oral argument for March 4, 2020 is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/149/2018-149_order_239445_a01g.pdf

As I previously blogged, the TIKD internet application permits a ticketed person to upload a photo of the ticket and pay a fixed amount.  TIKD then retains an attorney to represent that person and, if he or she is ultimately is assessed with points against his or her license, TIKD refunds the payment and also pays the cost of the ticket.

The TIKD business model is based on the fact that contested traffic tickets are often dismissed or a lower fine is assessed and, since TIKD deals in volume, it can charge a lower price than a lawyer who is separately retained by an individual.

The Florida Bar issued a staff opinion finding that lawyers who work with TIKD and similar programs could be (or were) in violation of various Florida Bar ethics rules, including fee splitting and interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.  TIKD stated that its services fully comply with Florida Bar ethics rules and that lawyers who represent the individuals receive a flat fee and are independent practitioners “over whom TIKD does not exercise any direction or control.”

On January 23, 2018, The Florida Bar filed a Petition Against the Unlicensed Practice of Law against TIKD and its founder, Christopher Riley.  The Petition alleged, inter alia, that TIKD and Riley “advertise in a fashion which may lead a reasonable lay person to believe Respondents are qualified to offer legal services to the public”, “either personally or through advertisement offer traffic ticket defense legal services for a fixed price along with an offer to pay all fines and court costs with a money-back guarantee” and, “either personally or through advertisement offer traffic ticket defense legal services while suggesting that their services are the equivalent of or a substitute for the services of an attorney.”

The Bar’s Petition requested the Court to find that the alleged conduct constitutes the Unlicensed Practice of Law and issue a permanent injunction “preventing and restraining Respondents from engaging in the acts complained of and from otherwise engaging in the practice of law in the State of Florida, until such time as Respondent Riley is duly licensed to practice law in this state.”  TIKD filed an Answer and motions and a referee was assigned.

On January 24, 2019, after the parties filed motions and a status hearing was held, the referee issued her report.  The report of referee states:

“After a careful review of the portions of TIKD’s website submitted by The Florida Bar and TIKD’s Terms of Service, including the FAQ’s and the prominent disclaimers in the Terms of Service, I find that the materials do not constitute legal advice, and do not represent that Respondents are attorneys or competent to handle legal matters. TIKD provides a service and its customers pay for the convenience

the service offers. No reasonable person could conclude, based on the evidence submitted to the Referee, that TIKD or Riley hold themselves out as providers of legal services.”

“Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Referee recommends that the Supreme Court of Florida dismiss all claims alleged against Respondents with prejudice, enter judgment in favor of Respondents.”

TIKD also filed a lawsuit against The Florida Bar in the U.S. Federal Court, Southern District of Florida, alleging conspiracy, restraint of trade, tortious interference with business relationships, and antitrust violations.  That case has been settled.

The Florida UPL matter will now be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida and the Court will issue an opinion after the March 4, 2020 oral argument.

Bottom line:  The TIKD business model implicates the traditional and longstanding prohibitions against the unlicensed practice of law and lawyers splitting fees with non-lawyers.  The referee did not agree that the model constituted UPL or fee splitting we will see what the Florida Supreme Court says after the March 4, 2020 oral argument.  I will be watching it.

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 Florida Bar, Florida Bar TIKD antitrust lawsuit, Florida Bar v. TIKD - Florida Supreme Court oral argument, Florida Bar v. TIKD- referee report recommending dismissal of Bar UPL Petition, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, TIKD -Florida Bar UPL petition w Florida Supreme Court, TIKD UPL, TIKD UPL Bar request for Florida Supreme Court injunction, TIKD US DOJ Statement of Interest no Bar immunity, Uncategorized

Florida Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission approves “Advanced Registered Paralegal” program which would permit the limited practice of law

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court Commission on Access to Civil Justice’s approval of a proposal to create an “Advanced Florida Registered Paralegal” designation as part of the Florida Registered Paralegal Program in Chapter 20, the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

The Access Commission voted to approve the proposal to create the Advanced Florida Registered Paralegal designation and program and forwarded the proposal to the commission’s Executive Committee.  The Executive Committee’s chair forwarded the proposal informally to the Florida Bar Board of Governors (BOG) for review and input and it has been placed on the agenda of the BOG’s January 31, 2019 meeting.

Under the proposal, Advanced Registered Paralegals would be required to have additional education and work experience than is required to become a Florida Registered Paralegal.  Advanced Registered Paralegals would also be required to be aware of “lawyer’s protocols” in performing authorized services.

Importantly, the proposal would also permit Advanced Registered Paralegals to engage in the limited practice of law under a lawyer’s supervision in family law, landlord tenant law, guardianship law, wills, advance directives, and debt collection defense.

The proposed rule revisions also set forth a licensing and disciplinary process, lists that duties that may not require “independent professional legal judgment,” and states that the Advanced Registered Paralegals must be supervised by a lawyer who “maintains a direct relationship with the client and maintains control of all client matters.”

Bottom line:  This is an early proposal for a Florida limited licensing and practice of law program for paralegals.  Various other states, including Utah, Washington, Oregon, and California already have limited licensing programs in place.

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

Please note:  My office has moved and the new office address is 2999 Alt. 19, Palm Harbor, FL 34683.  All other contact information remains the same.

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida Advanced Registered Paralegal program 2020, Florida Advanced Registered Paralegal program- limited practice of law, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Limited Practice of Law, Uncategorized

Florida Bar files Petition with Florida Supreme Court for approval of “Registered Online Service Provider Program”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Petition filed by The Florida Bar with the Supreme Court of Florida for approval of an “Registered Online Service Provider Program”.  The case is In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar-Chapter 23 Online Service Provider Program and the Supreme Court case docket is here:  http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseByYear?CaseNumber=2077&CaseYear=2019

On December 12, 2019, The Florida Bar filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court requesting the court to approve the creation a voluntary registration program designed to address individuals are increasingly using the internet for their legal needs.  The petition proposes the creation of new Chapter 23 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which would be called the “Registered Online Service Provider Program”.  The program permits the voluntary registration of qualified online legal service providers and, according to the Bar, it ii an effort to assure greater access to legal services to better protect the public.

The proposed program was approved by the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors in September 2019 and would permit online legal service providers to market themselves as “Registered with The Florida Bar” if they agree to comply with various regulations, including submitting to the jurisdiction of Florida for the resolution of consumer complaints.

The proposed program would apply to entities which are already operating in a largely unregulated area and would specifically require the registered online providers to provide the Bar with copies of all consumer complaints and state how they were resolved, and agree that “registration and revocation of the registration. . . is solely at the discretion of The Florida Bar.”

The proposed program would also require that registered online providers use only forms that are approved by the Florida Supreme Court, or have been reviewed and approved by Florida Bar attorney. The providers would also be required to notify consumers which form they are providing.  The deadline for comments is January 13, 2020 and any comments must be filed directly with the clerk of the Florida Supreme Court, and a copy served on the executive director of The Florida Bar.

Bottom line:  This is an early attempt by The Florida Bar to regulate “online service providers” and with the incentive that those which voluntarily comply can state that they are “Registered with The Florida Bar”.  We will see if the Supreme Court approves the program and, if so, whether the service providers choose to voluntarily register and comply.

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

Please note:  My office has moved and the new office address is 2999 Alt. 19, Palm Harbor, FL 34683.  All other contact information remains the same.

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2020 Florida Bar non-lawyer Registered Online Service Provider Program, Florida Bar, Florida Bar Board of Governors online legal provider registration program, Florida Bar Chapter 23, Registered Online Services, Florida Bar non-lawyer Registered Online Service Provider Program, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Uncategorized

Florida woman who failed Florida Bar examination and started fictitious law firm charged with federal felonies

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss federal criminal charges filed against a woman who failed the Florida Bar examination, started a fraudulent law firm, engaged in the unlicensed practice of law, and committed aggravated identity theft and mail fraud.

According to the federal charges and Florida Bar records, Roberta Guedes attended Stetson law school with Agnieszka Piasecka and both graduated in 2014. They had planned to open a law firm together; however, Guedes did not pass the Florida Bar examination.  Piasecka passed the Bar examination and opened her own law firm, which handled wills and trusts, immigration, and dissolution matters.  Guedes offered Piasecka the free use of an office in Tampa and Piasecka used the office a few times to meet with clients.

According to court records, in September 2014, Guedes incorporated an entity she called Ferguson and McKenzie LLC and listed Piasecka as a registered agent without her knowledge. She also listed another individual, Arlete Chouinard, as a vice president and manager for the business without her knowledge.

In November 2014, Guedes incorporated another entity, Immigration and Litigation Law Office, Inc., and again listed Piasecka and Chouinard as officers. The incorporation documents listed a Tampa address.  Guedes used Chouinard’s name, social security number and other personal information to open bank accounts and multiple lines of credit and used the accounts for personal and business expenses for the two “firms”.

Guedes advertised the “firm’s” legal services, printed and handed out business cards bearing Piasecka’s name and her own, and created a website for the immigration “firm” which falsely listed Piasecka as an attorney.  Guedes also accepted fees to represent clients in legal matters.

An individual retained Guedes to assist her to bring her Brazilian daughter to the U.S.  The records related to the immigration matter had Guedes’ name and signature; however, it listed Piasecka’s Florida Bar number.

Another individual hired Guedes to help with a divorce from his Brazilian wife and she traveled with the man to an immigration hearing in Orlando and appeared before Immigration Judge Daniel Lippman.  Guedes represented herself as Piasecka at the hearing and also posed as Piasecka in a telephone call with the judge a few weeks later.

Guedes also appeared in a Hillsborough courtroom in December 2015 with a Tampa man who had sought her help in filing a domestic violence petition and who did not know she was not a lawyer.  She attempted to contact Judges Frances Perrone and Chet Tharpe requesting that his two cases be heard on the same day.

Judge Perrone granted this individual’s request for a temporary injunction and directed her judicial assistant to give his “lawyer” a courtesy call.  The judge and her judicial assistant could not find Guedes name listed as a Florida lawyer.  The judge’s office found Guedes’ telephone number through an internet search and, when the judge’s judicial assistant asked Guedes if she was a lawyer, she replied: “You can just scratch through that part (her signature on the court document).

The Florida Bar filed a 6 count petition with the Florida Supreme Court on May 14, 2018 alleging that Guedes engaged in the unlicensed practice of law.  The petition alleged that “Guedes accepted money and purported to represent “clients” in immigration and family law cases and failed to disclose that she was not licensed to practice. The Bar’s petition is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2018/728/2018-728_Petition_69809_PETITION2DUPL.pdf.

Guedes initially denied the allegations in the Bar’s petition and claimed that she had only assisted clients with court paperwork and translation services; however, in a Stipulation for Permanent Injunction filed with the Florida Supreme Court on March 22, 2019, Guedes agreed to refund the money that she had taken from the “clients” and a permanent injunction prohibiting her from holding herself out as a lawyer in the future.

The Florida Supreme Court issued an Order on May 2, 2019  permanently and perpetually” enjoining Guedes from engaging in the practice of law and requiring restitution in the amount of $3,782.00 as well as a $6,000.00 civil penalty.

Guedes signed a plea agreement on October 30, 2019 admitting to the federal charges of mail fraud and aggravated identity theft and a sentencing hearing has been scheduled for December 2019 in Tampa.  She faces a minimum of two years in prison.

Bottom line:  This lawyer completed law school and failed the Florida Bar examination; however, she was able to engage in the unlicensed practice of law in both state and federal immigration courts beginning in 2014.  The unlicensed practice of law was discovered by a Hillsborough County Circuit Court judge and was reported to The Florida Bar.  She was also investigated by federal prosecutors and charged with criminal fraud and identity theft and she will be sentenced on those charges in federal court in Tampa in December 2019.

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

Please note:  My office has moved and the new office address is 2999 Alt. 19, Palm Harbor, FL 34683.  All other contact information remains the same.

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under .S. Supreme Court, deceit, dishonesty, Federal felonies- UPL and federal U.S. mail identity fraud, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Non-lawyer unlicensed practice of law creation of false law firm, Uncategorized, Unlicensed practice of law, UPL fraud impersonating lawyer

The client is missing and the statute of limitations expires soon:  what can or must a lawyer do?

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the ethics issues when a client is missing (or refuses to communicate) and the statute of limitations is about to expire.  I have been asked this question (or a variation of it) many times in my over 30 years of practice and I have provided guidance to lawyers.  Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 72-36 RECONSIDERATION) July 1, 1987 addresses this issue and the opinion is here: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-72-36-Rec.pdf

In the initial Ethics Opinion 72-36 (published in 1972), the facts were that “the inquiring attorney was retained by his client under a contingent fee contract in a personal injury matter. The client disappeared sometime after retaining the attorney and before suit was filed. Two years passed and, despite his diligent efforts, the attorney was unable to locate the client. The attorney asked whether he was ethically obligated to file suit before the limitations period expired.”

The initial opinion stated that “the attorney’s duty of zealous representation required him to take whatever action was necessary to prevent loss of the client’s rights due to the passage of time. Specifically, the attorney was obligated to file suit unless he could obtain the opposing party’s agreement to waive the statute of limitations.”  Emphasis supplied.

After the Florida Ethics Opinion was published in 1972, ABA Informal Opinion 1467 was published, which stated that the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility had determined that an attorney has no duty to file suit to toll the statute of limitations if the client’s unavailability was not caused by the attorney’s neglect.

After the ABA Informal Opinion was published, the Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics reconsidered Ethics Opinion 72-36.  After reviewing the facts and Informal Opinion 1467, the committee stated:

“The Committee is now in accord with the conclusions reached in ABA Informal Opinion 1467. There, the attorney’s reasonable efforts to locate the client had been unsuccessful and the attorney believed there was no reasonable likelihood that the client would return. The ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility determined that the attorney had no duty to file suit to toll the statute of limitations if the client’s unavailability was not caused by the attorney’s neglect. The ABA committee further stated that it was not improper for an attorney to include in his employment agreement a provision requiring the client to promptly notify the attorney of any change in address and providing that, if the client failed to so notify the attorney, the attorney was not obligated to proceed with the case.

In view of ABA Opinion 1467, the Professional Ethics Committee is now of the opinion that an attorney whose client cannot be located despite the attorney’s reasonable efforts is not obligated to file suit to toll the running of the statute of limitations if the client’s unavailability is not caused by the attorney’s neglect or inaction (see Rule 4-1.3, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, requiring an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and: (1) the attorney believes there is no reasonable chance the client will return; or (2) the client’s unavailability is a breach of the attorney-client employment agreement. However, even in these situations it would not be unethical for the attorney to file suit in order to toll the statute of limitations.”

The executive summary of Ethics Opinion 72-36 (RECONSIDERATION) states:  “A lawyer retained for litigation by a client who has since disappeared is not obligated to file suit to toll the running of the statute of limitations if the lawyer has made a reasonable effort to locate the client and the client’s unavailability is not the result of neglect on the part of the lawyer.”

Bottom line:  Although ethics opinions are for guidance only and are not binding, the Florida Ethics Opinion (and the ABA Informal Opinion) makes it clear that al lawyer is not required to file a lawsuit on behalf of a client when the client is unavailable and cannot be located, even if the statute of limitations will run; however, the lawyer is also not ethically prohibited from filing the lawsuit.

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

Please note:  My office has moved and the new office address is 2999 Alt. 19, Palm Harbor, FL 34683.  All other contact information remains the same.

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under ABA Informal Opinion 1467- filing lawsuit when client is missing, Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 72-36 - filing lawsuit when client is missing, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer diligence, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer negligence, Uncategorized