Category Archives: joe corsmeier

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors considers final action on proposed rule revision prohibiting misleading law firm information in all advertisements

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the potential final review of potential revisions to Florida Bar Rules 4-7.13 by the Florida Bar Board of Governors (BOG), which would prohibit misleading law firm information in advertisements.

The BOG’s agenda for its May 24, 2019 meeting includes final action on a proposed amendment to Rule 4-7.13 related to misleading digital advertisements.  As I previously reported, the BOG ethics committee previously voted down a proposal to add Bar Rule 4-7.13(c) which would have stated that “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.”

The revised proposed rule would prohibit all advertisements from stating or implying that a lawyer is affiliated with the advertising lawyer or law firm in a way that misleads a person searching either for a particular lawyer or law firm or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a different lawyer or law firm.  The proposed rule revision is below.

RULE 4-7.13 DECEPTIVE AND INHERENTLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS

(b) Examples of Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements. Deceptive or inherently misleading advertisements include, but are not limited to advertisements that contain:

(11) a statement or implication that another lawyer or law firm is part of, is associated with, or affiliated with the advertising law firm when that is not the case, including contact or other information presented in a way that misleads a person searching for a particular lawyer or law firm, or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a different lawyer or law firm.

Bottom line:  As I previously blogged, if the BOG takes final action on the proposed revised Rule 4-7.13 prohibiting all of these types of misleading advertisements (and if the Florida Supreme Court implements the revised rule), this would be consistent with other jurisdictions that have considered the issue.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Bar rules deceptive and misleading advertisements Google AdWords, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule using GoogleAds words to misdirect to another firm, Florida Bar Rule- lawyer misleading law firm information in all advertising, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misleading law firm information in advertising, Uncategorized

California lawyer suspended for 30 days for failure to disclose client’s death while continuing to litigate matter

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent California Supreme Court Order which suspended a lawyer for failing to disclose the death of his client while continuing the litigation. The case is In the Matter of: Steven Pabros, Case No. 17-O-05369.   The Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition are here: https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2280292&doc_no=S254475&request_token=NiIwLSIkTkw6WyBdSCM9SE9IMEA0UDxTJiNeVz1SICAgCg%3D%3D and the May 2, 2019 California Supreme Court Order is here: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/17-O-5369.pdf

According to stipulated facts, the lawyer represented Alfeo and Leann Mattei, who were commercial landlords, as defendants, individually and as co-trustees of a trust in a civil suit that was brought by tenants whose antique shop was damaged by a fire in 2011. The fire started in the business of an adjacent tenant who sold the contents of storage units. The antique shop tenants claimed that the landlords knew the storage business was a fire hazard but did nothing about it.  The landlords claimed in a counterclaim that the contract required the tenants to indemnify them.

After a trial, the jury found the landlords liable based upon a theory of passive negligence; however, the trial judge found that the negligence was active and rendered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The lawyer appealed the judge’s findings.  While the appeal was pending, one of the landlords (Alfeo) died. The lawyer ultimately prevailed on the appeal, and the case returned to the trial court.

According to the stipulated facts, “Respondent learned of Alfeo Mattei’s death in or about June 2016 after the Court of Appeal remanded the case but failed to inform the court or opposing counsel, as required by Sonoma County Superior Court Local Rule 4.1(A). Local Rule 4.1(A) states “When a party to a case dies, the attorney for that party shall promptly serve and file a notice with the court.”

The lawyer failed to inform the court (or opposing counsel) of the death of Alfeo, even though Alfeo was the only person who could testify about the landlord’s contractual intent since he other landlord (Leann) was not involved in the lease.  The lawyer stated that he believed that he could establish intent by legal argument, by cross-examination or by use of an expert. He successfully opposed the tenants’ motion for summary judgment, and a trial was scheduled for April 2017.

On the first day of the trial, opposing counsel asked the lawyer why Alfeo was not on the witness list and the lawyer did not answer. The trial judge heard pretrial motions and opposing counsel commented on the fact that Alfeo had not been in court. Opposing counsel again asked whether Alfeo would testify, and the lawyer again did not answer.

Opposing counsel then conducted an internet search during a break in the proceedings, learned that Alfeo had died, and informed the judge.  The judge asked the lawyer if that was true, and the lawyer responded: “He has passed, yes.”.  The judge sanctioned the lawyer approximately $31,000.00 for continuing to litigate the case for more than a year without informing the court or the opposing counsel of the death and the judge also reported the order to the California State Bar.

The lawyer appealed the judge’s sanction, which is pending, and the judge also granted the tenants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no triable issue of fact on intent behind the lease.  That order is also on appeal.

The lawyer stipulated to a 30-day actual suspension, one-year stayed suspension, and a three-year probationary period with a condition that he attend Bar Ethics School and pay costs.  The May 2, 2019 Supreme Court Order approved the discipline.

Bottom line:  In this case, a defendant died during the pendency of litigation and the lawyer who represented him failed to advise the judge or opposing counsel (even after he was asked multiple times by opposing counsel) and he continued to litigate the case.  This case is somewhat unusual since many of the reported cases involve lawyers who are representing plaintiffs who die during ongoing litigation and fail to advise the judge and opposing counsel.

This lawyer apparently concluded that he could defend the matter without the testimony of the client; however, he clearly should have informed the judge and opposing counsel that his client had died and that he was planning to proceed without the client’s testimony.  The failure to disclose the death violated the local rule and the disciplinary rules, and the lawyer was suspended for 30 days with one year suspended.

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, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline failure to advise court of client death during litigation, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer suspension for failing to advise court of client death during litigation, Uncategorized

Florida Supreme Court rejects any Bar rule prohibiting lawyers from belonging to private services which refer to both lawyers and doctors

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court Opinion which rejected any Bar rule prohibiting lawyers from belonging to private services which refer to lawyers and doctors. The case is In Re: Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.22, Case No SC18-881.  The April 15, 2019 opinion is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/881/2018-881_disposition_145774_d25.pdf

A majority of the Florida Supreme Court (with Justice LaBarga dissenting) rejected any Bar rule that would have prohibited lawyers from belonging to services that refer callers for legal and other services stemming from the same incident.  In 2018, the Court issued an opinion implementing the Bar’s proposed qualifying provider rules and directed the Bar to draft and submit an additional rule prohibiting lawyers from using qualifying providers offering legal and other services stemming from the same event.

The April 15, 2019 opinion stated that, when the Court recommended a revision of Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22 last March, a majority of those justices wanted to further expand the rule to prohibit attorneys from belonging to referral services (now called qualifying providers) which refer callers for both legal and nonlegal services needed from the same event.  Those legal services are typically related to accidents or injuries where the callers need both medical and legal help.

The opinion referred to Justice Lawson’s partial dissent in the 2018 opinion and dismissed the case.  In his partial dissent in that case, Justice Lawson wrote that he disagreed with the majority only on requiring the Bar to submit a new rule banning lawyers from belonging to entities that also referred callers to other professional services emanating from the same incident. He noted the Special Committee on Lawyer Referral Services initially made that proposal in 2012. The Board of Governors considered that recommendation but instead voted that making certain disclosures to the client was sufficient.

In his partial dissent from the April 15, 2019 opinion, Justice Labarga noted that, in the 2018 opinion, “(the Court) comprehensively amended rule 4-7.22 to establish a single regulatory scheme under which lawyer participation in services that connect prospective clients to lawyers, such as matching services, are subject to the same restrictions as lawyer referral services, legal directories, and other similar services regulated by The Florida Bar.”

“Nevertheless, we expressed continued concern with respect to how certain lawyer referral services operate in Florida, particularly those that refer prospective clients to other professionals and occupational disciplines for services arising out of the same incident or transaction. I concurred in the conclusion that additional measures were needed to safeguard against potential harm…in my view, the amendments the majority rejects today are critical to ensure all services that connect prospective clients to lawyers first and foremost operate in a manner that protects and furthers the public interest.”

The dismissal of the pending case ends a multiple year review of the Bar’s lawyer referral service rules, which began when the Special Committee on Lawyer Referral Services of the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) submitted a report in 2012.  That report recommended stricter regulation of for-profit referral services and participating lawyers and among its recommendation was a prohibition of lawyers belonging to services that also referred callers to nonlegal services stemming from the same incident.

The BOG rejected the recommendation that lawyers be prohibited from lawyers belonging to services that also referred callers to nonlegal services stemming from the same incident stating that disclosures to the client were sufficient along with a requirement that the lawyer making such a referral must believe it is in the client’s best interest.

The Bar submitted those proposed revised rules to the Court in 2014.  The Court rejected those amendments and directed the Bar to submit a rule that required that all for-profit referral services be owned or managed by a Bar member and that lawyers could not belong to services that also referred callers for nonlegal work resulting from the same incident.

The BOG committee then redrafted the previously proposed rules and defined any company or service that links a lawyer and potential client as a “qualifying provider” when the participating lawyers are subject to Bar rules; however, the BOG rejected the proposed requirement that a Bar member own or manage a for-profit service or a prohibition on lawyers belonging to qualified providers that refer to others. Those revised proposed rule revisions were submitted to the court in 2016 and oral arguments were held in 2017.  Some justices closely questioned the Bar representative about the Bar’s failure to follow its earlier instructions.

Bottom line:  The issue of whether lawyers can participate with for profit services which refer to both lawyers and medical providers has been settled…for now.  Lawyers can continue to participate in such services and those services do not have to be owned solely by lawyers.

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 2018 Florida lawyer referral qualifying provider rule revisions, 2018 Florida lawyer referral service matching service rule revisions, Attorney Ethics, Florida 2018 lawyer referral service qualifying provider rule revisions', Florida Bar, Florida Bar 2016 Lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Referral Services, Uncategorized

Ohio lawyer sentenced to 30 days in jail for pleading that “was an attempt to mislead the court, obstruct justice and prejudice the administration of justice”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Court Order imposing a 30 day jail sentence on an Ohio lawyer, who is general counsel to Bowling Green State University (BGSU), for, inter alia, filing a pleading that “was an attempt to mislead the court, obstruct justice and prejudice the administration of justice”. The case is Fitzgerald vs. Fitzgerald, Case No. 2017DR0012.  The April 4, 2019 Order and Notice of Appeal are here: https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/292/April-5-Wood-County-decision.pdf (PDF of Order courtesy of Law.com)

According to media reports, the lawyer is employed as BGSU’s general counsel and vice president, and was representing himself in a divorce proceeding from his wife in the Wood County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations Division.  He was sentenced to 30 days in jail to begin on April 8, 2019 after a series of incidents during the proceedings.  He was then placed on paid leave by the university and he was also suspended from an appointment as an assistant attorney general through that position.

According to the Order, the lawyer objected to an attorney fee request filed by a lawyer who was representing one of his sons and told the judge he would be filing a grievance against that lawyer.  The Order states that “The Court finds that (the lawyer) was untruthful.  He claims to have filed a grievance against Mr. Mohler.  That was not true, no grievance was filed.  His pleading was an attempt to mislead the court, obstruct justice and prejudice the administration of justice.  Such a grievance, if true, would “impede of eliminate Mr. Mohler from representing his client.  This situation is magnified by the fact that Mr. Mohler has practiced before courts across Ohio, including this one, with calming superior legal skills, cogent writing and impeccable integrity. If Mr. FitzGerald had a grievance, he is duty bound to file it. He did not do so.”

“By his pleadings, e-mails and exhibits, Mr. FitzGerald has, at the least, been unprofessional toward the magistrate, Ms. Heringhaus; his former lawyer, Ms. Shope; the Guardian ad Litem, Ms.Cox; and his opposing counsel, Ms.Engwert-Loyd. During the last telephone pretrial, Mr. FitzGerald attacked Ms. Engwert-Loyd twice.”  The judge also found that the pleading violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and referred the matter to the Ohio disciplinary authorities.  The lawyer appealed the Order to the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals.

Bottom line: this lawyer apparently engaged in the misconduct while representing himself in a divorce proceeding from his spouse.  Notwithstanding the old adage that “he (or she) who represents him or herself has a —- for a client”, according to the Order, he attacked another lawyer who the judge “had practiced before courts across Ohio with calming superior legal skills, cogent writing and impeccable integrity.”

Be careful out there.

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or may need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding ethics, risk management, or other issues, 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, defense 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

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, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer bad conduct, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misconduct jail sentence, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer threatening Bar complaint, Lawyer threatening disciplinary charge, Lawyer threats and discipline, Uncategorized

New York lawyer receives four month suspension for “excessively aggressive” and threatening conduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent New York Appellate Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 4 months for engaging in aggressive, threatening, and bizarre conduct. The case is Matter of Bailey, 2019 NY Slip Op 02487 (April 2, 2019).  The disciplinary opinion is here: http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_02487.htm#2FN

The opinion states that the lawyer engaged in inappropriate conduct several times in 2016.  In one instance, the lawyer barged into an arbitration hearing at his law firm, started taking pictures with his telephone, and said: “This will be in the newspaper when I put this in there after we kick your asses.”

In a second matter, the lawyer threatened the resident of a building owned by a law firm client after that individual had alleged that the owner was overcharging tenants in an online post.  The lawyer demanded that the individual take down the post because it was defamatory and, when this did not occur, the lawyer sent a text to the individual stating that he would use “all means necessary” to protect his client.

The lawyer later called the individual, who recorded the conversation, and said that the resident should kill himself because he was worthless and that he would have him arrested.  The lawyer also said: “(y)ou have no idea what you stepped into . . . Welcome to my world. Now you’re my bitch . . . you’re gonna be paying for this heavily for the rest of your life.”

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) held a hearing on the matter and found that the lawyer’s conduct violated multiple New York disciplinary rules, including threatening criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter and conduct that adversely reflects on counsel’s fitness as a lawyer, and recommended that the lawyer be suspended for three months.

A referee was appointed, who found, inter alia, that the lawyer “engaged in excessively aggressive behavior while representing a client. . . . (,) failed to conduct himself within the bounds of propriety, and . . . violated one or another Rule.’ The Referee found that respondent had never apologized to the arbitrator, the witness whose testimony respondent interrupted, or to Mr. Dawson and “refuse(d) to take full responsibility for his actions, which would include admitting he knew that he was interrupting an arbitration, properly apologizing, and recognizing that his aggressive litigation tactics must be controlled.”  The referee recommended that the lawyer be suspended for 3 months.

The opinion rejected the lawyer’s argument for a public censure because he failed to apologize for his actions and he had been admonished in 2011 and 2014 for aggressive behavior and failing “to conduct himself within the bounds of propriety.”  The opinion also rejected the AGC and referee’s recommendation of a 3 month suspension and imposed a 4 month suspension “until further order of the Court” and required the lawyer to “engage in counseling for a period of up to one year, as determined and monitored by the New York City Bar Association’s Lawyer Assistance Program.”

Bottom line: this lawyer engaged in in bizarre and very aggressive conduct, including stating to an individual (on a recorded line): “Now you’re my bitch … you’re gonna be paying for this heavily for the rest of your life.”  The suspended the lawyer for 4 months and required that the lawyer participate in counseling supervised the Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program for 1 year.

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

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer bad conduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer suspension for “excessively aggressive” and threatening conduct, Lawyer threatening e-mails, Lawyer threats and discipline, Uncategorized

Ohio lawyer suspended for 1 year for engaging in “extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on paralegal for over 2 years is reinstated to practice

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Ohio Supreme Court reinstating a lawyer who was suspended for 1 year for “extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on a paralegal lasting over 2 years. The case is Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick, No. 2018-OHIO-2990. The 8/1/18 suspension opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2018/2018-Ohio-2990.pdf and the 3/11/19 reinstatement Order is here: https://supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2019/2019-ohio-821.pdf

The August 1, 2018 Ohio Supreme Court opinion suspending the lawyer described the lawyer’s conduct as follows: “(d)uring (the paralegal’s) two-and a-half year tenure, Skolnick berated her for her physical appearance, dress, education, and parenting skills. He called her a bitch, a ‘hoe’, a dirtbag, and a piece of shit, and he told her that he hoped she would die. And because (the paralegal) recorded her interactions with Skolnick on more than 30 occasions, we have had the opportunity to hear Skolnick’s outbursts for ourselves.”

“In addition, the lawyer ‘called (the paralegal) stupid, dumb, fat, ‘whorey,’ and bitch.’ Further, he remarked that she should give him ‘road head’ during a drive and falsely told an African American client that the paralegal “did not like black people.”

“The only explanation that Skolnick offered for his extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks on L.D. was that he had learned the lingo from rappers and hip-hop artists while practicing entertainment law and that he believed he was using the phrases in more of a humorous than a harmful way.” In addition, “(a)lthough (the lawyer) presented some evidence that he had been diagnosed with and was being treated for cyclothymic disorder and exhibited traits of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, the board declined to afford mitigating effect to those conditions because Skolnick did not present any evidence that they were causally related to his misconduct.”

The opinion found that the lawyer violated Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(h), prohibiting a lawyer from “engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law” and suspended the lawyer for one (1) year with the final 6 months deferred; however, on March 11, 2019, the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the lawyer. “On application for reinstatement by respondent, Howard Evan Skolnick, Attorney Registration No. 0061905, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio. Application granted. Howard Evan Skolnick reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.”

Bottom line: this lawyer engaged in extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on his paralegal and tried to minimize and justify his conduct by claiming that he learned the “lingo” from “rappers and hip-hop artists” and was being treated for psychiatric disorders. The court imposed a 1 year suspension with the final 6 months deferred on August 1, 2018 and he was reinstated on March 11, 2019, approximately 7 months later.

Be careful out there.

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
http://www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier
about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer cumulative misconduct disruptive and obnoxiousl behavior, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer disbarment obnoxious and disruptive cumulative misconduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Uncategorized

Wisconsin appellate court finds judge’s Facebook friendship with child custody litigant created “great risk of actual bias”

Leave a comment

Filed under joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge ethics Facebook friends with litigant, Judge Facebook friends with litigant, Judicial ethics, Uncategorized

%d bloggers like this: