Category Archives: joe corsmeier

Nevada lawyer suspended for 6 months and 1 day for displaying a gun at a deposition and other “appalling behavior”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent 6 month and 1 day suspension of a Nevada lawyer for brandishing a gun at a deposition, using derogatory language and repeatedly making inappropriate statements, and other “appalling behavior”.  The case is In re: Discipline of James Pengilly, SC Case No. 74316.  The September 7, 2018 unpublished Nevada Supreme Court Order is here:  file:///C:/Users/jcorsmeier/Downloads/18-35030%20(1).pdf

The lawyer was representing himself as the defendant in a defamation lawsuit and the misconduct is related to the lawyer’s behavior during a deposition of the Plaintiff at his office in September 2016.  The lawyer used vulgarities while questioning the witness, called the deponent derogatory names (including “Dip Shit” and “Big Bird”), aggressively interrupted the witness and opposing counsel, answered questions for the witness, and repeatedly made inappropriate statements on the record.

At one point during the deposition, the lawyer put his hand near his hip and asked the witness if he was “ready for it”. The witness then briefly left the room and when he returned, the lawyer displayed a firearm he had in a holster on his hip to the witness and the opposing counsel.  The deposition was then terminated and the defamation litigation was put on hold.  The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions outlining the misconduct.  The Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions and exhibits are here: 9-29-16 Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions.  The lawyer was sanctioned for his misconduct in the litigation.

The unpublished Nevada Supreme Court Order states: “(h)aving reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the panel’s findings that Pengilly violated RPC 8.4(d) (prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). Indeed, the deposition transcript, coupled with the testimony at the formal hearing, demonstrates that Pengilly displayed appalling behavior toward the deponent. Additionally, the record is clear, and Pengilly admits, that he displayed a firearm. Accordingly, we agree with the hearing panel that Pengilly committed the violation set forth above.”

“Pengilly argues that his conduct should be viewed under a negligence standard, but we agree with the panel that he acted knowingly as he was consciously aware of his conduct and knew his behavior was inappropriate. His conduct caused actual injury to the proceeding as the deposition concluded early and the discovery commissioner had to issue a protective order, causing the case to be delayed. Both the deponent and his attorney testified they were afraid Pengilly was going to shoot them, and their fears were documented: they immediately called the police, filed police reports the next day, filed for a TPO, and filed bar grievances. Further, there was the potential for serious injury to every one present—the deponent, his attorney, the court reporter, Pengilly’s office staff, and even Pengilly himself–because a deadly weapon was involved.”

Bottom line:  This case involves a lawyer who was clearly lacking in emotional control and anger management, to say the least.  In addition, he was representing himself, and we know how that can go.

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

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer disparaging comments at deposition, Lawyer disruptive conduct, Lawyer disruptive litigation conduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misconduct at deposition brandishing weapon 6 month suspension, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer threats and discipline, misconduct in deposition- discipline, Nevada lawyer suspended for brandishing gun in depositions

Florida Bar’s RJA committee proposes amendments to RJA Rule 2.505 clarifying requirements for substitute attorneys

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent draft amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration which would clarify the requirements for substitute attorneys in litigation matters.

According to an article in the July 15, 2018 Florida Bar News, the Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration Committee has drafted revised rules to address requirements for substitute attorneys who appear at hearings when the attorney of record has a scheduling conflict.

At its meeting at the Florida Bar’s annual meeting in June 2018, the Bar’s RJA Committee considered a proposed amendment to Rule 2.505, clarifying which attorneys are authorized to represent a party and require substitute lawyers (“stand-in” attorneys under the proposed rule), to file a notice of appearance unless they are from the same firm, company, or agency as the attorney of record in the case.  The committee did not require a first reading and the proposed rule amendments will be placed on the agenda for final committee approval at the Bar’s Fall Meeting in Tampa on October 19, 2018.

Substitute or covering (or “stand in”) attorneys are not currently mentioned in RJA Rule 2.505, which, inter alia, addresses how attorneys enter and leave cases.  The use of substitute or covering (“stand-in”) lawyers has developed outside of the rules and with minimal authority.  Cases from the various district courts of appeal have found that a document filed by a substitute attorney is a nullity or was subject to challenge.

The proposed rule amendment states that an attorney appears for a party by signing the first pleading or the first document a filed in a case, by filing a notice of appearance, being named as the succeeding attorney in a substitution order, filing a notice of substitution, or filing a notice of limited appearance.  Current Rule 2.505 does not address coverage counsel or limited appearances.

The Bar’s Vision 2016 commission recommended rule revisions in cases in which a self-represented party hires an attorney to help in specific, limited issues, or circumstances.  The RJA committee then submitted a more extensive amendment to Rule 2.505, which addressed how attorneys enter and leave a case, and limited appearances of attorneys.

The Florida Supreme Court rejected that proposed amendment in 2017 and stated:  “While the attempt to develop one body of comprehensive rules that classifies different types of representation and governs how attorneys appear and terminate an appearance in a case is laudable, we believe more refined rules that address these matters for each of the various practice areas should be considered; and there should be more active involvement of and communication between all the affected rules committees before new proposals are finalized.” The September 7, 2017 Florida Supreme Court opinion is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-1062.pdf

Bottom line:  This issue has been around and debated for a number of years and many lawyers are not even aware of it and follow local custom when there is a need for a covering attorney.  The proposed rule revisions are an attempt to create uniformity with regard to substitute/covering attorneys.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2018 proposed Florida RJA 2.505 covering substitute stand in counsel, 2018 proposed RJA rules lawyers as stand in substitute coverage counsel, Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer stand in substitute counsel

First Limited Licensed Paralegal Practitioners expected to be licensed to practice limited law in Utah in 2019

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the implementation of the limited license practitioners (LLP) program in Utah, which is the second such program in the United States.  The first non-lawyer licensing program was Washington’s Limited Licensed Legal Technician (LLLT) Program, which has been in place since 2015.

In 2015, the Utah Supreme Court considered a proposal to permit limited licensed paralegal practitioners (LPPs) to provide legal advice and assist clients in limited matters; however, those paralegals would not be permitted to appear in court.  The new LPPs would assist clients in completing legal forms, completing settlement agreements and representing them in mediated negotiations.

The Utah Supreme Court Task Force to Examine Limited Legal Licensing was appointed to consider rules permitting non-lawyers to provide help in specified areas of family law, eviction and debt collection.  The task force’s report recommended that LPPs have a law degree or an associate’s degree with a paralegal certificate, paralegal certification, paralegal experience and additional coursework in their practice area. The Utah State Bar would supervise the licensing and discipline.

The Utah Supreme Court Task Force’s November 18, 2015 Report and Recommendation is here: http://www.utcourts.gov/committees/limited_legal/Supreme%20Court%20Task%20Force%20to%20Examine%20Limited%20Legal%20Licensing.pdf.

The new LLP Rules were approved by the Utah Supreme Court and will take effect November 1, 2018.  The first LLPs in Utah are expected to be licensed in 2019, which will make it the second state to license non-lawyers to practice law and will allow LLPs practice without a lawyer’s supervision in three areas.

Those legal areas include:  matters involving temporary separation, divorce, parentage, cohabitant abuse, civil stalking, custody and support, and name change, matters involving forcible entry and detainer, and debt collection matters in which the dollar amount in issue does not exceed the statutory limit for small claims cases.  LLPs will not be permitted to appear in court on behalf of a client.

LPPs will be permitted to help clients choose, complete, file, and complete service of legal forms; review and explain court orders or another party’s documents; advocate for a client in a mediation; and complete settlement agreements after a negotiation.  Classes for licensed paralegal practitioners will be taught at Utah Valley University and the first licensing examinations are expected to be held in Spring 2019.

Bottom line:  Utah is the second state to permit limited licensed legal practice in the United States.  Washington has had a Limited Licensed Legal Technician (LLLT) Program in place since 2015 and California and Oregon are thinking about it:  See:  http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/Who-We-Are/Board-of-Trustees/Board-Task-Force/Limited-License-Working-Group and http://bog11.homestead.com/LegalTechTF/Jan2015/Report_22Jan2015.pdf

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under 2018 Utah rules permitting non-lawyer legal practice, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Non lawyer compensation, Non-lawyer limited practice of law, Non-lawyer practicing law

Ohio lawyer suspended for engaging in “extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on firm paralegal for over 2 years

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Ohio Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 1 year with the final 6 months deferred for “extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on a paralegal for over 2 years. The case is Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick, No. 2018-OHIO-2990 (Aug 1, 2018).  The opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2018/2018-Ohio-2990.pdf.

The opinion described the lawyer’s conduct as follows: “During (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.

Bottom line: this lawyer engaged in extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on his paralegal.  The lawyer 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.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer abuse of nonlawyer paralegal, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer suspension for attacks on paralegal, Lawyer threats and discipline, violation of Bar rule 8.4(h) prohibiting a lawyer from “engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

Leave a comment

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

Florida Supreme Court hears oral argument in case where judge found that Facebook “friendship” with lawyer was not disqualifying

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert update which will discuss the recent oral argument which was held by the Florida Supreme Court in a matter wherein a Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge denied a motion to disqualify a lawyer who was a “friend” on the judge on Facebook and the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s order.  The case is Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A. d/b/a Herssein Law Group and Reuven T. Herssein v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No.: 2015-015825-CA-43 (Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC17-1848).

The law firm filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court to stay the proceedings and invoke the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction.  The Court accepted jurisdiction and ordered a stay and oral argument was held on June 7, 2018   The video of the oral argument is here:  https://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2490

As I previously blogged, the Circuit Judge held that she was not required to recuse herself from a case in which she was a Facebook “friend” of the lawyer for one of the witnesses/potential parties.  That lawyer was also a former judge with whom the judge worked before he resigned as a circuit judge.  The decision appeared to depart from a previous 4th DCA opinion and an opinion of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (JEAC).

The Herssein law firm appealed to the Third DCA, which denied the appeal and stated:

“…we hold that the mere fact that a judge is a Facebook “friend” with a lawyer for a potential party or witness, without more, does not provide a basis for a well-grounded fear that the judge cannot be impartial or that the judge is under the influence of the Facebook “friend.” On this point we respectfully acknowledge we are in conflict with the opinion of our sister court in Domville.”

The Herssein law firm then requested that the Florida Supreme Court invoke its discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision under Article V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const., and Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv) and, in support of the request, stated:  “The decision expressly and directly affects a class of constitutional or state officers; all V judges in Florida, and the decision expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of another district court of appeal on the same question of law.”

During the oral argument on June 7, 2018, the justices expressed divergent views regarding whether a “Facebook” friendship should trigger the disqualification of judges and also noted there was no record of the extent of the trial judge’s Facebook presence in this matter, including the number of friends, how often and what type of information was posted, and any communications between the lawyer and the judge.  Many of the justices also said they do not use Facebook, and some stated that this was to avoid the questions that are being raised in this case.

According to an article in the July 1, 2018 Florida Bar News, Justice Allan Lawson stated that Facebook friendship is “a spectrum that runs from close friendship, but runs further to someone you don’t recognize on the street or might not know…I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the argument that…I have no connection with this person, (and that) would somehow result in recusal or disqualification.”  Justice Peggy Quince noted that the problem is “where would you draw the line” regarding the type of friendship that would require a recusal.

Bottom line:  As I have said in my previous blogs, the circuit judge’s order and the 3rd DCA opinion appear to be contrary to the 2009 JEAC opinion and the 2012 4th  DCA opinion and the opinion acknowledges that it is in conflict; however, it does provide the rationale that each case should be decided by examining the facts and the relationship.  This would seem to create potential confusion and disqualification motions which would then have to be decided on a case by case basis.  The Florida Supreme Court may now decide whether to there will be a case by case analysis or a bright line rule.

I would again point out that it would be prudent for judges and lawyers who may appear before judges to consider not being “friends” or otherwise have a connection on social media or, if they are already connected in a case, to immediately remove the connection, disclose it to all parties, and the judge could possibly provide an option to recuse if a party believes that there may be potential prejudice.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Ethics Opinions judges connecting on Facebook and LinkedIn, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge disqualification- Facebook friends with lawyer, Judges and lawyer friends on Facebook, Judicial ethics, Judicial Ethics Facebook and LinkedIn, Lawyer and Judge Friends on Facebook Motion to Disqualify Judge

Florida Bar Board of Governors scheduled to review proposed revisions to Bar Rules related to referral services and lawyer “expert” advertising

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the scheduled review by the Florida Bar Board of Governors (BOG) of proposed amendments to the Florida Bar Rules related to private lawyer referral services/qualifying providers and lawyer advertising as expert/specialist when the lawyer is not certified at its July 27, 2018 meeting.  According to the Florida Bar:

“The Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics has on their agenda a question regarding how lawyers can be paid by lawyer referral services — or qualifying providers — including considering several arrangements that are currently banned by Bar rules. Here is an overview and a Q&A on the changes that went into effect on April 30. Overview and Q&A

“The committee may report on the requests of three lawyer referral companies on whether they are qualifying providers under revised Bar Rule 4-7.22. 411-Pain and 1-800-Ask-Gary said they primarily want to refer callers who need medical assistance to their affiliated clinics and will send those who request legal assistance to participating lawyers at no cost. LegalRFQ wants to create an online system where potential clients could post their legal problems online and participating lawyers could submit bids for handling those issues.”

“In addition, the agenda includes a discussion on an amendment to Bar Rule 4-7.14, which allows attorneys and law firms that are not certified to advertise they are experts or specialists. Experts and Specialists  This amendment is being presented to the board on first reading. Almost three years ago, a federal judge struck down the Bar’s rule prohibiting non-certified lawyers from saying they or their firms are experts or specialists. The Bar’s first attempt to redraft the rule — which said lawyers and law firms that substantially met certification standards could say they were experts or specialists — was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court. The court said the amendment ‘could lead to differing and inconsistent applications.’ The board has a December 17 deadline to refile the amendment with the court.”

Bottom line: The BOG will be considering proposed revisions to the lawyer referral/qualifying provider rules, including fee arrangements that are currently prohibited by the rules, and also an amendment to the certification rule which would address the federal court opinion which found that this rule was unconstitutional as applied and issued an injunction prohibiting its enforcement, which the Bar did not appeal.

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 Bar - petition to make finding of frivolous filing conclusive proof of Bar rule violation, Florida Bar lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Bar matching services, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising expert and specialist, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer independent professional judgment- AVVO and matching services, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer Referral Services, Lawyer use of expertise and specialist in advertising and certification, Lawyers use of specialization and expertise ethics