Category Archives: Lawyer ethics

Florida Bar Board of Governors approves proposed Bar rule prohibiting misleading law firm information in all lawyer advertisements

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent approval of revisions to Florida Bar Rule 4-7.13 by the Florida Bar Board of Governors (BOG).  If implemented, the proposed revisions would prohibit misleading law firm information in all Florida lawyer advertisements.

As I previously reported, the agenda for the BOG’s May 26, 2019 meeting included final action on a proposed amendment to Florida Bar Rule 4-7.13 related to misleading law firm advertisements. The BOG ethics committee previously voted not to approve a proposal to add Bar Rule 4-7.13(c), which would have stated:

It is inherently misleading or deceptive for a lawyer to intentionally use, or arrange for the use of, the name of a lawyer not in the same firm or the name of another law firm as words or phrases that trigger the display of the lawyer’s advertising on the internet or other media, including directly or through a group advertising program.”

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

RULE 4-7.13 DECEPTIVE AND INHERENTLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS 

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

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

The proposed rule will now undergo a review process and will be sent to the Florida Supreme Court in a petition for potential approval and implementation.

Bottom line:  As I have previously reported, if the revised Rule 4-7.13 prohibiting all of these types of misleading advertisements is implemented by the Florida Supreme Court, the rule would be consistent with other jurisdictions that have considered the issue.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, deceit, false statements, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule using GoogleAds words to misdirect to another firm, Florida Bar Rule- lawyer misleading law firm information in all advertising, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misleading law firm information in advertising, Lawyer misrepresentation, misrepresentations, Uncategorized

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

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

The BOG’s agenda for its May 24, 2019 meeting includes final action on a proposed amendment to Rule 4-7.13 related to misleading digital advertisements.  As I previously reported, the BOG ethics committee previously voted down a proposal to add Bar Rule 4-7.13(c) which would have stated that “it is inherently misleading or deceptive for a lawyer to intentionally use, or arrange for the use of, the name of a lawyer not in the same firm or the name of another law firm as words or phrases that trigger the display of the lawyer’s advertising on the internet or other media, including directly or through a group advertising program.”

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

RULE 4-7.13 DECEPTIVE AND INHERENTLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS

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

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

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

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be careful out there.

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

My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, defense of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms.  If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license. 

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me at jcorsmeier@jac-law.com.  You can find my law firm on the web at www.jac-law.com. In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida.  I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.

You are receiving this ETHICS ALERT since you are a current or former client or you have requested that this Update be sent to you.  Please note that you may opt in or out of receiving this ETHICS ALERT any time.  If you would like to discontinue receipt of this ETHICS ALERT or if you would like to begin receiving it, simply send me an e-mail to me advising of your request.

If there are others at your firm who would like to be included on the distribution list, please feel free to forward this update to them or let us know in an email.  If you would like to forward this

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

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