Category Archives: Joseph Corsmeier

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

Advertisements

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

Avvo’s new parent company, Internet Brands, states it is discontinuing AVVO Legal Services effective July 2018

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the communication sent by Internet Brands, which recently acquired AVVO, sent a letter to the Deputy Counsel for the North Carolina Bar Authorized Practice Committee, advising that it is discontinuing AVVO Legal Services “to align more comprehensively with our business and focus” and the discontinuation would be complete by July 2018.  The letter from B. Lynn Walsh, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Internet Brands to the North Carolina Bar is here: https://www.responsivelaw.org/uploads/1/0/8/6/108638213/avvo_legal_services_discontinuation_letter.pdf

The North Carolina Bar had previously drafted a proposed opinion approving lawyer participation in Avvo Legal Services; however, the draft was sent back for further study.  According to the Internet Brands letter, the North Carolina Bar Authorized Practice Committee sent correspondence to AVVO dated March 16, 2018 posing questions to about AVVO Legal Services as it relates to the unauthorized practice of law.

According to the June 6, 2018 response letter, Internet Brands, which acquired Avvo in January 2018, the company has decided that AVVO Legal Services does not “align” with its “business and focus”.  The letter states:

“At Internet Brands, we are focused on our users, and making sure we provide them with accurate, and consumer-friendly information to help them navigate the difficult tasks of identifying and hiring lawyers. As part of our acquisition of Avvo, we have evaluated Avvo product offerings, and adjusted the Avvo product roadmap to align more comprehensively with our business and focus. Accordingly, we have decided to discontinue Avvo Legal Services. The discontinuation began this month, with completion expected by the end of July.”

As I previously blogged, AVVO Legal Services has generated much controversy with the Avvo Legal Services model, and multiple states have found that the service is unethical.  Recent Indiana Ethics Opinion 1-18 (April 2018) found that AVVO’s client referral services may violate Indiana Bar rules related to fee sharing with a non-lawyer, improper referral fees to a non-lawyer entity, potentially misleading communications, and the lawyer’s obligations related to professional independence and disclosure of limited representation.  That opinion is here: https://www.in.gov/judiciary/discipline/files/dc-opn-1-18.pdf.

Bottom line:  This letter and the decision by Internet Brands to shut down AVVO Legal Services is a bit surprising considering that AVVO has been vigorously defending the service in multiple states.  Apparently, Internet Brands concluded that AVVO Legal Services did not align with their “corporate vision”, or they saw that the various state Bars were not backing down, or possibly both.

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under 2017 New Jersey joint ethics opinion re AVVO lawyer referral services violate Bar rules, Attorney Ethics, AVVO Advisor fee splitting, AVVO Advisor- BOG opinion re lawyer referral service, AVVO fee sharing and referral fee plans, Avvo legal services, AVVO shutdown of AVVO Legal Services, Indiana ethics opinion 2018- AVVO Adviser violation of Bar fee and other rules, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer Referral Services, New Jersey joint ethics opinion improper referral fees and fee sharing and, New Jersey Supreme Court Order- no review of 2017 NJ AVVO joint ethics opinion, New York joint ethics opinion improper referral fees, Non lawyer compensation

New Jersey Supreme Court declines to review ethics opinion finding that AVVO’s referral program violates Bar Rules

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent New Jersey Supreme Court Order denying a petition requesting review of the New Jersey Ethics Opinion which found that AVVO’s referral program violated that state’s Bar rules.  The case is In the Matter of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Joint Opinion 732, The Committee on Attorney Advertising Joint Opinion 44, and the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law Joint opinion 45, September Term 2017, Case No. 079852.  The Order is here is here: https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/399/11771/Avvo-Cert-Order.pdf

The June 1, 2018 Order denied a petition for certification by Consumers for a Responsive Legal System, an organization that represents Avvo and other online companies providing lawyer referrals.  The petition requested that the Court review a June 21, 2017 joint ethics opinion which found that Avvo facilitates improper fee-splitting and may not be utilized by New Jersey lawyers.

The joint opinion was issued by the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, the NJ Committee on Attorney Advertising and the NJ Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.  The Attorney General’s Office, representing the committees, and the New Jersey State Bar Association opposed the petition.  I blogged about the joint opinion in my Ethics Alerts here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/new-jersey-joint-ethics-opinion-finds-that-fees-paid-to-avvo-for-client-referrals-violate-new-jersey-bar-rules/ and the joint opinion is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5plgfqgi26zuym1/ACPE%20732%20Avvo%2C%20LegalZoom%2C%20Rocket%20Lawyer%206.21.17.pdf?dl=0

The joint opinion was issued in response to a bar association inquiry requesting an opinion on “whether it is ethical for lawyers to participate in certain online, non-lawyer, corporately owned services to the public” specifically naming Avvo, LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer and their referral programs.  The opinion found that the LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer programs would be ethical if the programs were registered with the state; however, the opinion found ethics issues with the structure of Avvo’s “pay-for-service” programs and stated that lawyers are prohibited from participating in those programs.

According to the joint opinion, Avvo offers “Avvo Advisor”, which permits customers to buy a 15-minute telephone conversation with a lawyer for a $40.00 flat rate with Avvo keeping a $10.00 “marketing fee”, and “Avvo Legal Services,” where customers would pay flat fees to Avvo for legal services that would be provided by AVVO affiliated lawyers.  Avvo would then pay the lawyer and keep a “marketing” fee.  “The participating lawyer receives the set price for the legal service provided, then pays a portion of that amount to Avvo”. “The label Avvo assigns to this payment (“marketing fee”) does not determine the purpose of the fee. … lawyers pay a portion of the legal fee earned to a nonlawyer; this is impermissible fee sharing.”

The joint opinion also found that marketing fees that lawyers would be required to pay Avvo are not for advertising but are an impermissible “referral fee” under the definitions in New Jersey Bar Rules 7.2(c) and 7.3(d).  In addition, holding the lawyer’s fee until the service is provided violates the requirement that a lawyer maintain funds in a trust account under the rules.

The joint opinion concluded: “New Jersey lawyers may not participate in the Avvo legal service programs because the programs improperly require the lawyer to share a legal fee with a nonlawyer in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a), and pay an impermissible referral fee in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2(c) and 7.3(d).”

Bottom line:  The New Jersey Supreme Court’s denial of the petition to review the joint opinion leaves New Jersey as one state which has determined that a lawyer’s participation in the “AVVO Advisor” and “AVVO Legal Services” lawyer referral plans is a violation of that state’s lawyer ethics rules.

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 2017 New Jersey joint ethics opinion re AVVO lawyer referral services violate Bar rules, Attorney Ethics, AVVO Advisor fee splitting, AVVO fee sharing and referral fee plans, Avvo legal services, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer independent professional judgment- AVVO and matching services, Lawyer matching services Avvo, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer Referral Services, Lawyer responsibilities AVVO and Linkedin, New Jersey Supreme Court Order- no review of 2017 NJ AVVO joint ethics opinion