Massachusetts lawyer reprimanded after accidentally copying opposing counsel email to lawyer with plan to avoid judge’s call

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Massachusetts Board of Overseers Order imposing a reprimand on a lawyer who sent an email to another lawyer to evade a judge’s and accidentally copied opposing counsel.  The case is Massachusetts Bar Counsel v. Cosentino, Public Reprimand No. 2024-1.  The Board Report and Order are here: https://bbopublic.massbbo.org/web/f/PR2024-1.pdf    

According to the Board of Overseers’ March 28, 2024 report:

On March 10, 2022, a few days prior to trial, the Court held a pretrial hearing. The respondent informed the judge that a trial likely was not going to be necessary because his clients had been consulting with a bankruptcy attorney and were either going to default or file for bankruptcy protection prior to trial. The respondent stated that it was unclear to him whether both of his clients had retained the bankruptcy attorney, or just Giving Tree. The judge stated that if only Giving Tree was filing for bankruptcy protection, they would still need to address the claims against Mr. Bairos individually. CSI’s counsel alleged that the defendants were withholding information about their bankruptcy plans in order to encourage CSI not to prepare for trial.

The judge stated that he wished to telephone the bankruptcy attorney from the bench, and CSI’s counsel provided the bankruptcy attorney’s phone number to the clerk. While the clerk was dialing the bankruptcy attorney’s number, the respondent took his cell phone from his pocket and sent the bankruptcy attorney an email that stated “Court is going to call you. Don’t pick up.” He also sent the bankruptcy attorney a text message that stated: “Don’t pick up your phone.” The bankruptcy attorney did not pick up the phone because he was occupied with another client, and not because of the respondent’s email and text.

The respondent did not inform the judge that he was sending the email and text to the bankruptcy attorney. However, he inadvertently copied the email to CSI’s counsel. The next day, CSI’s counsel brought the email to the judge’s attention.  (emphasis supplied).

Bottom line:  This lawyer was sent an email to another lawyer attempting to prevent a judge from properly communicating with another lawyer during a court hearing.  The lawyer’s plan was discovered because he copied the opposing.  The conduct was clearly sanctionable and arguably conduct that was prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.  I am not sure a lawyer in another jurisdiction (including Florida) would only have been reprimanded.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Connecticut lawyer faces disciplinary charges after firm network administrator allegedly accessed departing employee’s personal emails

Hello everyone.  Happy 2023 and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent disciplinary charges against a Connecticut lawyer whose firm network administrator allegedly improperly accessed a departing associate’s personal emails, among other charges.  The Connecticut Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s Presentment is here:  https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=24296594   

According to the Presentment, in February 2021, the lawyer ordered his network administrator to improperly access the office computer of a departing associate to find his communications with the new law firm which hired him. The network administrator “retrieved, copied and downloaded personal emails” from the associate’s personal gmail account.  The emails were downloaded onto the law firm’s server.

A lawyer from the associate’s new law firm contacted the lawyer to determine whether he wanted to send a joint letter to the clients. The lawyer is alleged to have responded with an email stating that the clients belonged to his firm and “I will say in unambiguous terms that should you proceed in this manner, we will not hesitate to sue Alex personally and your firm, as well as file grievances. If you act on your email and participate, we will include you and your firm in those grievances and lawsuits … By virtue of your email, you have in essence admitted to conspiring to commit a crime and exposed yourself and Alex to civil damages and potential criminal liability … Again, the clients are my firm’s, not Alex’s. DO NOT CONTACT THEM IN ANY MANNER.”

The Presentment alleges, inter alia, that the lawyer committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, used methods of obtaining evidence that violated the lawyer’s legal rights, engaged in improper solicitation, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice..

The Presentment requests that the Superior Court issue an appropriate order of discipline.  The lawyer executed an Admission of Misconduct acknowledging violation of certain rules listed in the probable cause findings but disputing some of the facts and rules.  The lawyer agreed to the submission of the matter to the Superior Court for review and that if the Admission is rejected by the Superior Court, the matter would be referred to a different judge for further proceedings.

Bottom line: This lawyer is alleged to have, inter alia, ordered his network administrator to improperly access a departing lawyer’s personal email account and committed a criminal act that reflected adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, used methods of obtaining evidence that violated the lawyer’s legal rights, engaged in improper solicitation, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  He partially admitted to misconduct and the court will determine whether the admission will be accepted and, if so, what discipline will be imposed.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Illinois Bar complaint alleges that lawyer demanded future pain damages for a client who he knew was deceased

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Complaint filed by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission against an Illinois lawyer who allegedly demanded future pain damages for client who he knew was deceased.  The case is In the Matter of John Paul Kolb, Commission No. 2022PR00039 and May 5, 3033 Complaint is here: https://www.iardc.org/File/View/1497871?FileName=Complaint%3A%20In%20re%20John%20Paul%20Kolb%2C%20Matter%20Number%3A%202022PR00039.pdf      

According to the disciplinary Complaint, the client was injured on April 20, 2016, while riding in a taxi that collided with another vehicle.  The client died on January 1, 2017, from causes unrelated to the automobile accident.  The client’s mother notified the law firm of his death on January 3, 2017.  The client’s death terminated the lawyer’s authority to represent his client and the client’s family would have to pursue a claim through a representative of his estate appointed by the probate court.

The lawyer made a settlement demand for $245,000.00 on November 8, 2017, stating that the client would likely suffer from “significant arthritis” because of his injuries although he was aware of the client’s death when he made the settlement demand. 

The Complaint alleges that the insurance adjuster did not know that the client had died and made a counteroffer of $50,000.00 on December 20, 2017.  The lawyer agreed to settle the case for $60,000.00 on December 27, 2017.  The lawyer then sent an email to a partner in his law firm stating: “Settled $60,000. Client is dead from unrelated cause. Settled without adj knowledge of death.”  “Adj” apparently referred to the insurance adjuster.

On December 27, 2017, the insurer sent the lawyer a full release and settlement for the client’s execution. The insurance carrier refused to settle when it received a settlement document indicating that the party signing the agreement was the administrator of the client’s estate, rather than the client.  The Complaint alleges that the revision to the document was made either the lawyer or an employee acting under his direction.

Bottom line:  This lawyer apparently (and allegedly) did not know (or ignored the fact) that a client’s death terminates a lawyer’s representation, and a deceased person has no future “pain and suffering”.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Arizona lawyer is suspended for 60 days for coaching client using chat function during virtual trial

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Arizona Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer 60 days for using the “chat” function on the GoToMeeting platform to coach his client in answering questions.  The case is In the Matter of State Bar of Arizona, Ryan Patrick Claridge, PDJ 2021-9088.  The Arizona Supreme Court Final Judgment and Order, Agreement for Discipline by Consent, and Decision Accepting Agreement for Discipline by Consent are here: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/101/2021/CLARIDGE%20PDJ%202021-9088.pdf?ver=MC9grhQGbj3dKF_KKJJFHg%3d%3d 

According to the Agreement for Discipline by Consent, the lawyer was charged with sending messages to a divorce client during cross-examination by her estranged husband in Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court in September 2020.  The judge was present in the courtroom and the other parties participated virtually through GoToMeeting. 

The judge determined that the lawyer appeared to be coaching his client when she reviewed the “chat”. The lawyer’s chat messages to the client directed the client “to provide specific, substantive answers to specific questions that were being asked of her.”  The judge instructed the lawyer to stop and the lawyer agreed; however, the lawyer apparently said to the judge: “It would be the same as if I shook my head in the courtroom.”

The lawyer admitted in the consent agreement that he violated ethics rules regarding fairness to an opposing party; conduct involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in the consent agreement.  According to the consent agreement, the lawyer had no prior disciplinary record and had a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings;.

The lawyer was suspended for two (2) months beginning on March 1, 2022 with a two-year probationary period after he is reinstated, and payment of $1,200.00 within 30 days of service of the Final Judgment and Order.

Bottom line: This is one of the many ways that lawyers can get into difficulty in the brave new world of electronic court proceedings.  Incredibly, this lawyer decided to communicate with the client about her answers in testimony using the “chat” function during the hearing.  Not surprisingly, I strongly recommend that lawyers not do this.

           Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Florida lawyer disbarred and arrested for disparaging statements and accusations of judicial witchcraft

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court Order disbarring a lawyer for making disparaging statements and accusations regarding the judiciary and accusing judges of witchcraft.  The lawyer was also recently arrested for the misconduct.  The case is The Florida Bar v. Edward Juan Lynum, Case No.: SC20-746 and The Florida Bar Complaint, Report of Referee, and January 21, 2021 Florida Supreme Court Order can be found here: https://www.floridabar.org/public/acap/disc-docs/?icn=202030020&member=18484      

According to the lengthy and detailed Report of Referee dated October 30, 2020, the lawyer described himself in online posts as the victim of a conspiracy in which judges and political figures were conspiring to kill him and destroy his life due to their bigotry and worship of satanic forces. 

The referee’s report states that, in a July 2019 Facebook post, the lawyer stated that the first judge who presided in his divorce “fabricates evidence” and is “a dirty stain in our clean SUMTER COUNTY.”   The lawyer also said on his blog that the judge has a reputation as “a judge who fabricates evidence and fabricates the evidence in red font, so it screams pagan witchcraft. Her decision to fabricate evidence in red-font screams, ‘I am Satan’ in white people’s words.’”

The report states that lawyer also called the first judge “a dumb, satanic slut”, referred to Bar Counsel as a worthless and inept “satanic slut”, and said that the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court should be executed for tolerating hate crimes and witchcraft. 

In another Facebook post cited in the report, the lawyer accused the judge who took over the divorce case of sodomizing the lawyer’s daughter.  The lawyer also stated on his blog that the judge issued “a satanic order” and that he and judges like him “have weaponized their judicial power for evil that appear racist to minorities. I don’t and won’t call it racism because it trivializes and distracts from his objective criminal behavior and practice of witchcraft.”

The referee’s report also cites a post in which the lawyer said the two judges “can’t hide from my almighty God’s vengeance; like David, I will kill Goliath and hold up his bloodied and severed head with a smile on my face.”

The referee found in the report that the lawyer’s posts had “grown more frequent, threatening and outrageous” as the Bar matter progressed.  The January 21, 2021 Florida Supreme Court Order disbarring the lawyer was issued two weeks after his arrest on criminal charges, including threatening harm to a public servant.

Bottom line:  This is an outrageous and disturbing example of a lawyer losing his license and being criminally prosecuted for improper online and internet activity and communications, this time on Facebook and his public blog.   

Be careful out there and, of course, watch what you say online.

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

U.S. District Court Judge enjoins Pennsylvania from enforcing Bar rule with broad lawyer anti-discrimination prohibitions

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent U.S. District Judge for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania’s opinion and preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of a disciplinary rule broadly prohibiting discrimination by lawyers as violative of the free speech component of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The case is Greenburg v. Haggerty, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 20-3822.  The opinion and injunction is here:  https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.574138/gov.uscourts.paed.574138.29.0.pdf  from www.courtlistener.com). 

The Pennsylvania Bar rule is a variation of an ABA Model Rule which was promulgated in 2016, and multiple states have adopted a version of the ABA rule with the broad anti-discrimination prohibitions.  Pennsylvania Rule 8.4(g) states that a lawyer is prohibited from “in the practice of law, by words or conduct, knowingly manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination, as those terms are defined in applicable federal, state or local statutes or ordinances, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, harassment or discrimination based upon race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status or socioeconomic status.”

The Comment to the Pennsylvania rule states: “conduct in the practice of law includes participation in activities that are required for a lawyer to practice law, including but not limited to continuing legal education seminars, bench bar conferences and bar association activities where legal education credits are offered.”

Philadelphia lawyer Zachary Greenberg filed the lawsuit and argued that the application of Rule 8.4(g) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct would chill his speech as a lawyer for a foundation defending the free speech rights of students.  The lawyer stated that he mentions slurs, epithets and demeaning nicknames in presentations about the constitutional rights of people who do and say offensive things.   The lawyer stated that he also speaks at events related to his work for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and his membership with the First Amendment Lawyers Association.

The judge found that the lawyer had standing to sue and that the Pennsylvania rule was likely unconstitutional because it discriminated based on an individual’s viewpoint in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and he issued a preliminary injunction blocking the rule from being enforced. 

The opinion and injunction states: 

There is no doubt that the government is acting with beneficent intentions.  However, in doing so, the government has created a rule that promotes a government-favored, viewpoint monologue and creates a pathway for its handpicked arbiters to determine, without any concrete standards, who and what offends. This leaves the door wide open for them to determine what is bias and prejudice based on whether the viewpoint expressed is socially and politically acceptable and within the bounds of permissible cultural parlance. Yet the government cannot set its standard by legislating diplomatic speech because although it embarks upon a friendly, favorable tide, this tide sweeps us all along with the admonished, minority viewpoint into the massive currents of suppression and repression. Our limited constitutional Government was designed to protect the individual’s right to speak freely, including those individuals expressing words or ideas we abhor.

The irony cannot be missed that attorneys, those who are most educated and encouraged to engage in dialogues about our freedoms, are the very ones here who are forced to limit their words to those that do not “manifest bias or prejudice.” Pa.R.P.C. 8.4(g). This Rule represents the government restricting speech outside of the courtroom, outside of the context of a pending case, and even outside the much broader playing field of “administration of justice.” Even if Plaintiff makes a good faith attempt to restrict and self-censor, the Rule leaves Plaintiff with no guidance as to what is in bounds, and what is out, other than to advise Plaintiff to scour every nook and cranny of each ordinance, rule, and law in the Nation.

Bottom line:  As I indicated, other states have adopted rules which expand conduct prejudicial to the administration to include broad prohibitions of discrimination, including Florida, although Florida Bar Rule 4-8.4(d) does not have the Pennsylvania Comment regarding the scope of activities included in the practice of law. 

It will be interesting to see if the preliminary injunction is appealed and, if so, if it is upheld, and also whether other lawsuits are filed claiming that the rule is unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

            Stay safe and healthy and be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 493 addresses Model Rule 8.4(g) prohibiting harassment and discrimination based upon, inter alia, race, sex, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the (very) recent (July 15, 2020) American Bar Association Formal Opinion 493 titled “Model Rule 8.4(g): Purpose, Scope, and Application”, which provides guidance on application of the rule prohibiting harassment or discrimination “on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”  Formal Opinion 493 here:  https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba-formal-opinion-493.pdf

The lengthy and expansive formal opinion provides guidance on the purpose, scope, and application of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). The Rule specifically prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct related to the practice of law that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of the listed categories.

The formal opinion states that a potential violation of the rule must be assessed using a standard of objective reasonableness, and only conduct that is found harmful will be grounds for discipline.

ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) is below:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

The formal opinion also states that ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) applies to conduct and comments related to the practice of law that occur outside the representation of a client and even outside of the courtroom.  The rule is also not restricted to severe or pervasive conduct, which is the standard used in the employment context.  Further, the conduct that violates paragraph (g) will often be intentional and may be targeted at a particular individual or group of individuals, such as directing a racist or sexist epithet towards others or engaging in unwelcome, nonconsensual physical conduct of a sexual nature.

According to the formal opinion, the Model Rule does not prohibit a lawyer from freely expressing opinions and ideas on matters of public concern or limit a lawyer’s speech or conduct in settings unrelated to the practice of law. The fact that others may personally disagree with or be offended by a lawyer’s expression does not from the basis of a rule violation.  Further, the Model Rules are rules of reason, and whether the lawyer’s conduct violates the rules must be judged in the factual context and by using an objectively reasonable standard.

The formal opinion concludes:  “Besides being advocates and counselors, lawyers also serve a broader public role. Lawyers “should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.  Discriminatory and harassing conduct, when engaged in by lawyers in connection with the practice of law, engenders skepticism and distrust of those charged with ensuring justice and fairness. Enforcement of Rule 8.4(g) is therefore critical to maintaining the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the legal system and its trust in the legal profession as a whole.“

Bottom line:  The ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), (which is not binding on lawyers) states that lawyers are not prohibited from freely expressing opinions and ideas; however, since lawyers serve a broader public role and are also officers of the court , they must be aware of their public (and potentially private comments) and not make comments which may be considered to be harassment or discrimination on the basis of the listed categories.  As always, lawyers should consult with their jurisdiction’s disciplinary rules for the language in those rules (if any).

Florida lawyers should be aware that Florida Bar Rule 4-8.4(d) has language prohibiting a lawyer’s conduct that is more restrictive and which also expands the categories of conduct which would be considered to be a potential violation of that rule.

Florida Bar Rule 4-8.4(d) is below:

A lawyer shall not: (d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic.

Stay safe and be careful out there.

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

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Joseph Corsmeier about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Pennsylvania lawyer disbarred after practicing law for 17 years while under administrative suspension

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss a recent disbarment of a lawyer who continued to practice law for 17 years while suspended for failing to pay the annual registration fee.  The case is Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jason Michael Purcell, No. 2651 Disciplinary Docket 3, No. DB 2018 and the October 31, 2019 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order disbarring the lawyer with the detailed Report and Recommendations of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board dated September 4, 2019 is here:  http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/142DB2018-Purcell.pdf

According to the Disciplinary Board Report, the lawyer was suspended on December 1, 2002, for failing to pay his annual attorney registration fee; however, he continued to claim that he was a practicing attorney through social media.  He claimed on LinkedIn that he had “15-plus years of diverse legal experience” and that he was licensed to practice in California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.

The lawyer also falsely claimed that he held several jobs in the legal field, including working as in-house counsel and an associate broker for a private boutique real estate firm in New York from 2012 to 2017.  The Report also found that the lawyer had appeared as counsel in a drunken driving case and custody matter in 2005, worked as counsel of record in a drug case, and helped prepare a petition to recanvass voting machines in 2006.

The lawyer also represented an individual in an abuse protection matter in 2018 and told the judge in that matter that he had been reinstated; however, he never provided any documents showing that he had been reinstated.

According to the Report: “During his lengthy period of administrative suspension, respondent engaged in serious professional misconduct by continuing to hold himself out to the public as an active member of the Pennsylvania Bar and representing clients in at least five legal matters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

The lawyer was also convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol twice and he was charged with a third DUI in 2006; however, he failed to appear in the case.

The lawyer failed to respond to the disciplinary charges and did not appear at the disciplinary hearing.  The Supreme Court adopted the findings in the Board report and disbarred the lawyer.

Bottom line:  It is very surprising, to say the least, that this lawyer was able to practice for 17 years while under suspension for failing to pay his annual attorney registration fee.  It is somewhat more surprising that the lawyer did not address and pay the registration fee and request reinstatement.  Finally, it is surprising that the lawyer failed to participate in the disciplinary proceedings; however, this may be at least partially explained by the fact that he was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol twice and was charged with a third DUI in 2006, but failed to appear.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

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

Joseph Corsmeier about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Maryland Court of Appeals disbars lawyer for, inter alia, serious trust account and other violations, negligence, and calling a witness a “baby-snatching bitch”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Maryland Court of Appeals opinion which disbarred a lawyer for, inter alia, engaging in a pattern of mismanaging client trust funds and other trust account violations, failing to appear in court on behalf of several clients, failing to respond to requests by both Bar Counsel and clients, urging a former client to provide Bar Counsel with false information in attempt to interfere with the investigation, failing to adequately communicate with clients, and calling a non-client witness a “baby-snatching bitch”.  The case is Attorney Grievance Commission v. Garland Montgomery Jarrat Sanderson, Case No. 24-C-18-002381 AG, and the July 23, 2019 opinion is here: https://www.courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/coa/2019/3a18ag.pdf

In the very long opinion, the court addressed the substantive issues, evidence, Bar rule violation, and aggravating and mitigating factors and disbarred the lawyer.  With regard to the disparaging remarks to the non-client witness, in November 2015, the lawyer was representing the parent of a child in a case involving CINA (Children in Need of Assistance).  At a hearing in the case, a social worker for the Baltimore County Department of Social Services provided testimony.

After the hearing, the lawyer approached the social worker in the hallway outside the courtroom and there was testimony that the lawyer and the social worker had a brief but heated exchange of words that ended with the lawyer calling the social worker a “bitch.”  The social worker testified at the disciplinary hearing that the lawyer actually referred to her as a “baby-snatching bitch.”

The opinion upheld the disciplinary judge’s finding that, in using the disparaging language, the lawyer violated Rule 8.4(e) of the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct.  That rule prohibits attorneys from, either by words or conduct, expressing bias or prejudice when acting in the lawyer’s professional capacity, including discrimination based on race, sex, religion, disability, age, or sexual orientation. The judge in the disciplinary matter concluded that the lawyer violated Rule 8.4(e) in his exchange with the social worker because his remarks were disparaging.

The lawyer argued the word’s widespread use in hip-hop music made the use of the term alone insufficient to support a violation of the rule of professional conduct and that, in some instances, the word “bitch” actually implied a level of respect. The court rejected that argument out of hand and stated that the lawyer’s language “in no way demonstrated any such level of respect.”

Bottom line:  This disbarment was a result of the lawyer’s multiple egregious violations of Maryland Bar rules and it is clear that this court (and most likely other courts) will not tolerate the use of such disparaging language while the lawyer is acting in the capacity of a lawyer.  Not sure what this lawyer was thinking (or not thinking)…

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

Florida Supreme Court permanently disbars lawyer for, inter alia, breaking into former law firm, creating parallel firm, and filing multiple improper fee liens

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court Order permanently disbarring a Florida lawyer for, inter alia, breaking into his former law firm and the firm’s storage unit, creating a parallel law firm, and filing multiple improper fee liens.  The case is The Florida Bar v. Christopher Louis Brady, Case No.: SC19-39, TFB No. 2019-10,127(12B)(HES).  The July 11, 2019 Florida Supreme Court Order is here: https://lsg.floridabar.org/dasset/DIVADM/ME/MPDisAct.nsf/DISACTVIEW/2A42CACF97608E7785258439000C41B7/$FILE/_11.PDF 

According to the referee’s report, the lawyer was employed as an associate at a law firm and was fired in July 2018 after missing hearings and for exhibiting “odd and concerning behavior.”  Almost immediately after his firing, the lawyer began holding himself out as the owner of the former law firm even though there was one sole owner.  The Report of Referee is here: https://lsg.floridabar.org/dasset/DIVADM/ME/MPDisAct.nsf/DISACTVIEW/32070D97303477DA852583DF000AB0F1/$FILE/_19.PDF.  The lawyer justified his actions by claiming that the former law firm’s failure to use periods in “PA” when created as a professional association gave him the right to create a new firm of the same name by filing as a professional association with periods, so that it read “P.A.”.

The lawyer and his twin brother were also criminally charged with burglarizing the former law firm’s office in August 2018.  A videotape of the burglary apparently showed the lawyer and his brother backing a truck up to the law firm, tying a rope from the truck to the front door and using the vehicle to rip the door open. The video also showed the lawyer and his brother removing a safe and the law firm’s computer server.  A few days later, the lawyer and his brother burglarized the law firm owner’s storage unit using keys which were taken from a safe that was stolen during the law firm burglary, according to the referee.  The lawyer also stole a firearm during the burglary.

The lawyer filed several documents on behalf of the law firm and its clients without their knowledge or authority, and filed a false confession of judgment in his own favor.  He also filed more than 100 notices of liens for fees in the law firm’s pending cases “in an attempt to grab fees from cases to which he was not entitled.”

The law firm owner obtained an injunction which barred the lawyer from harassing him or interfering with his business.  The injunction also prohibited the lawyer from contacting the firm owner, his employees, his clients or his attorney. The lawyer violated that injunction multiple times and a court order was issued holding him in contempt for violating the injunction three times.

The referee’s report cited the lawyer’s refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct as one of the multiple aggravating factors and recommended permanent disbarment.  According to the referee’s report, “(the lawyer’s failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct) is perhaps the most profoundly implicated aggravator in this case”.  The lawyer “clings to his justification for his actions with a ferocity that is quite disturbing.”

Bottom line:  This case is certainly very bizarre and the lawyer’s conduct as set forth in the report of referee is extremely disturbing.

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