Category Archives: Lawyer ethics

Florida 4th DCA finds fee agreement arbitration clause unenforceable since the clause failed to comply with Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i)

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Florida 4th District Court of Appeal opinion which held that an arbitration clause in a fee agreement was unenforceable since it violated Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) by failing to advise the client to consider consulting independent counsel.  The case style is Lindsay Owens v. Katherine L. Corrigan & KLC Law P.A., No. 4D17-2740, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 9174 (Fourth DCA June 27, 2018) and the opinion is here: https://www.4dca.org/content/download/244172/2149993/file/172740_1709_06272018_09290264_i.pdf

According to the opinion, the plaintiff filed a three-count legal malpractice action against the defendants alleging negligent representation in a dependency case, which caused her to lose custody of her children. The defendants moved to dismiss the litigation since the plaintiff had signed a fee agreement requiring her to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. The fee agreement included the following arbitration clause:

Any controversy, dispute or claim arising out of or relating to our fees, charges, performance of legal services, obligations reflected in this letter, or other aspects of our representation shall be resolved through binding arbitration in Broward County, Florida, in accordance with the Fee Arbitration Rule (Chapter 14) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. [YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BY AGREEING TO ARBITRATION YOU ARE RELINQUISHING YOUR RIGHT TO BRING AN ACTION IN COURT AND TO A JURY TRIAL.]

The trial court dismissed the litigation, finding that the parties had “entered into an agreement to arbitrate that was not waived.”  On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court’s order violated her right to due process by denying her a proper forum; the arbitration clause in the fee agreement was unenforceable because it violated Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) by failing to include the independent counsel notice required under the rule; and the arbitration provision was ambiguous as to whether it required arbitration of a legal malpractice claim.

The opinion addressed plaintiff’s Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) argument, finding it to be dispositive. The opinion stated that there are three elements for a court to analyze in deciding whether the arbitration of a dispute will be required: whether there is a valid written agreement to arbitrate; whether an arbitrable issue exists; and whether the right to arbitration was waived.

Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) prohibits lawyers from making an agreement with a client for mandatory arbitration of fee disputes without providing the written Notice required by the rule, which includes advising the client that he or she should consider consulting with another lawyer and obtaining independent legal advice. Rule 4-1.5(i) provides:

(i) Arbitration Clauses. A lawyer shall not make an agreement with a potential client prospectively providing for mandatory arbitration of fee disputes without first advising that person in writing that the potential client should consider obtaining independent legal advice as to the advisability of entering into an agreement containing such mandatory arbitration provisions. A lawyer shall not make an agreement containing such mandatory arbitration provisions unless the agreement contains the following language in bold print: 

NOTICE: This agreement contains provisions requiring arbitration of fee disputes. Before you sign this agreement you should consider consulting with another lawyer about the advisability of making an agreement with mandatory arbitration requirements. Arbitration proceedings are ways to resolve disputes without use of the court system. By entering into agreements that require arbitration as the way to resolve fee disputes, you give up (waive) your right to go to court to resolve those disputes by a judge or jury. These are important rights that should not be given up without careful consideration. 

The defendants argued that Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) did not apply since there was no fee dispute; however, the opinion rejected that argument and found that, although the arbitration clause might require arbitration of matters other than fee disputes, the clause clearly violated the Florida Bar rule by failing to provide the required notice.

The opinion held that the fee agreement violated Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) and was unenforceable on its face since it required mandatory arbitration of future fee disputes without giving plaintiff the required written notice that the client “should consider obtaining independent legal advice as to the advisability of entering into an agreement containing such mandatory arbitration provisions.”

Bottom line:  This Florida appellate opinion held that mandatory arbitration clauses in fee agreements must comply with Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i) and, as a part of that notice, the client must also be advised in writing to consider consulting with independent counsel.  If the clause fails to comply with these requirements, it is rendered unenforceable.

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

NO

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer fee agreements mandatory arbitration, Mandatory arbitration Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(i), Mandatory arbitration in fee agreement unenforceable as violation of Bar Rule 4-1.5(i)

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

Referee recommends that former Florida judge who accepted Tampa Bay Rays tickets be suspended for 90 days and placed on probation

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Report of Referee which recommends that former Lee County Judge John Lakin, who was alleged to have improperly accepted tickets to Tampa Bay Rays baseball games, be suspended from practice for 90 days and be placed on probation for one year.  The case is The Florida Bar v. John Francis Lakin, SC17-542.  The June 25, 2018 Report of the Referee is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4564632-Referee-Report-Lakin.html

The Judicial Qualification Commission charged the judge with misconduct in 2016 alleging, inter alia, that he had requested and received Tampa Bay Rays tickets from a law firm in 2015 while presiding over a pending case in which the law firm represented one of the parties.  A jury ruled in favor of opposing party; however, the judge subsequently reversed that verdict in favor of the law firm’s client.  Five of the tickets that the judge received were given to him the day before he reversed the jury verdict.  The judge denied that the receipt of the tickets influenced his actions and later retired from the bench and went into private practice.

The Florida Bar filed a Complaint in March 2017 alleging that the lawyer violated Bar Rules related to dishonesty, deceitfulness, misrepresentation and/or fraud.  The referee assigned to hear the Bar matter recommended that the former judge’s law license be suspended for 90 days, and that he be placed on supervised probation one year, complete the Bar’s practice and professionalism enhancement program, “speak to new judges” about the circumstances, and pay the Bar’s costs of $5,244.00.

Under the Florida Bar rules, the referee’s report will now be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court, which will render a final disciplinary opinion.  The judge and The Florida Bar can file a petition with the Court to review the findings and file briefs.

Bottom line:  This former judge accepted tickets from lawyers who were representing a party before him on a pending case and, soon after receiving the tickets, made a ruling which favored that law firm’s clients.   Even if the tickets did not influence the judge’s decision, the circumstances would certainly seem to create an appearance of impropriety and an arguable violation of the Judicial Canons.  The referee has now recommended that the judge be found guilty of Florida Bar Rule violations and suspended from practicing law for 90 days.  The Florida Supreme Court will now decide whether the referee’s findings will be upheld.

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, Florida Bar, Florida judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, Former judge lawyer discipline accepting gifts while judge from party's lawyer, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judge ethics accepting gifts, Judicial ethics, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Illinois Disciplinary Board recommends 6 month suspension for lawyer who created false internet dating profile for opposing lawyer

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Illinois Disciplinary Hearing Board Report and Recommendation which recommended a 6 month suspension for a lawyer who created a false Match.com dating profile for an opposing lawyer, falsely denied doing it, and posted false negative internet reviews on the same lawyer.  The case is In re Drew Randolph Quitschau, Commission No. 2017PR00084 (June 6, 2018).  The Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Board is here: https://www.iardc.org/rd_database/rulesdecisions.html.

A disciplinary complaint was filed against the lawyer on August 4, 2017.  The complaint stated the lawyer was a partner in a law firm in Bloomington, Illinois until February 10, 2017 when he was terminated.  The lawyer and another Illinois lawyer named Michelle Mosby-Scott had appeared as opposing counsel in 17 proceedings and both appeared as opposing counsel in seven proceedings between June 2016 and February 2017.

Count I of the complaint alleged that the lawyer engaged in dishonesty by creating a false profile on Match.com in the name of another attorney, without the other attorney’s permission, and making several false representations in that profile and also that the lawyer made a false statement to a partner at his law firm by denying any responsibility for the false profile. Counts II through V alleged that the lawyer engaged in dishonesty by using the Internet to register with organizations or subscribe to materials in the name of the same other attorney, without the other attorney’s permission. Counts VI and VII alleged that the lawyer engaged in dishonesty by posting on the Internet false and negative reviews of the professional ability of the same attorney.  The disciplinary Complaint is here: https://www.iardc.org/17PR0084CM.html

According to the Report, the lawyer admitted to all of the misconduct allegations in his Answer to the complaint and the Hearing Board found that all misconduct charges were proven.  A hearing was held on February 6 and March 2, 2018 and the Report further states:

“The Match.com profile created by Respondent included the following representations that Respondent knew were false: Mosby-Scott was separated from her husband; her children sometimes live with her; she smokes but is trying to quit; she regularly drinks alcohol; she is an agnostic; she is 56 years of age; she does not exercise and enjoys auto racing and motor cross; she has cats; and her favorite hot spots are the grocery store, all restaurants, the Pizza Ranch, all buffets, and NASCAR.

Also in September 2016, Respondent downloaded several photos of Mosby-Scott from her law firm website. He then uploaded those photos to the Match.com profile he created so that the photos could be viewed by the general public. Respondent knew the profile he created in Mosby-Scott’s name was false and knew she had not authorized him to create the profile, user name, password, or email address.

In early October 2016, Mosby-Scott became aware of the Match.com profile in her name. She filed a lawsuit requesting the court to provide her with the Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the Match.com profile. On December 9, 2016, Match.com provided to Mosby-Scott that IP address. On January 20, 2017, Comcast, the Internet provider for the Thomson & Weintraub law firm gave written notice that the law firm’s IP address was used to create the false Match.com profile for Mosby-Scott. On the same date, Terrence Kelly, a partner at Thomson & Weintraub informed employees that the firm’s IP address was used to create the false profile. He also announced that the firm would be hiring a computer expert to examine all of the firm’s computers. On about the same date, Kelly asked Respondent whether he had created the false profile, and Respondent denied doing so. Respondent knew his statement to Kelly denying that Respondent created the profile in Mosby-Scott’s name was false.”

The Report states that the Board “discussed the seriousness of the misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and concluded that a fixed term of a suspension, even a lengthy one, will not adequately maintain the integrity of the legal profession or protect the administration of justice from reproach and recommended Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months and until further order of the Court.”

Bottom line:  This lawyer admitted all of the bizarre allegations of misconduct in his Answer, including that he had created the Match.com profile “downloaded several photos of (the opposing lawyer) from her law firm website (and) then uploaded those photos to the Match.com profile he created so that the photos could be viewed by the general public” and lying to his law firm by denying that he created it.  He also admitted posting false and negative reviews of the lawyer’s professional ability on the internet; however, there is nothing in the Complaint or Report which discusses the actual motives behind this very strange and inexplicable conduct by the lawyer.  The Report and Recommendation will now be sent to the Illinois Supreme Court for review and a final opinion.

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

N

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, lawyer creating false internet profile for opposing counsel, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer false statements, lawyer improper social media conduct, Lawyer sanctions for lying and posting on social media, Lawyer social media ethics, lawyer suspension social media misconduct, Lawyers and social media

Florida lawyer disbarred for soliciting and having sex with 2 clients while they were incarcerated in jail

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion disbarring a lawyer who had solicited and sex with 2 clients in they were incarcerated in jail.  The case is The Florida Bar v. Blackburn, No. SC17-1514 and the opinion is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc17-1514.pdf

The Florida Bar’s complaint alleged that the lawyer visited the 2 female clients in jail in Duval County on September 3, 2016.  He deposited money in one client’s bank account to pay for the sex and promised another client free or discounted legal services in exchange for sex.  The lawyer was arrested and pled no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge in the underlying criminal matter on May 25, 2017.

According to media reports, the lawyer showed the clients pornographic images before having sexual contact with them.  One of the clients said then made sexual advances towards her by touching her and forcing her to touch him.  Jail employees became suspicious when they noticed that the lights were out in the room. Criminal investigators also obtained a recorded telephone call that one of the clients made to her friend from the jail explaining what happened.

The Florida Bar and the lawyer entered into a consent agreement for an 18 month suspension with the conditions that the lawyer attend the Florida Bar’s Ethics School, contact Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. (FLA, Inc.) to schedule an evaluation and abide by all recommendations made by FLA, Inc., and pay the Bar’s costs of $1,688.51 before he could be reinstated.  The referee approved the agreement; however, the Court, in a unanimous opinion, disbarred the lawyer.  The lawyer had previously been suspended for 30 days in December 2014 for minor misconduct related to his handling of a child custody case.

The May 24, 2018 opinion states:

“Furthermore, the Court has moved toward imposing harsher sanctions, see Florida Bar v. Herman, 8 So. 3d 1100, 1108 (Fla. 2009), and has stated that it ‘will strictly enforce the rule against lawyers engaging in sexual conduct with a client that exploits the lawyer-client relationship.’ Fla. Bar v. Bryant, 813 So. 2d 38, 44 (Fla. 2002); see Fla. Bar v. Samaha, 557 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 1990) (‘Even the slightest hint of sexual coercion or intimidation directed at a client must be avoided at all costs.’).

“In summary, evidenced by this Court’s case law, under no circumstances should an attorney representing a client expose that client to unwanted sexual relations of any kind. Respondent’s conduct, which exploited his clients’ circumstances for his own personal benefit, ‘breeds contempt and distrust of lawyers,’ ‘demonstrates severe moral turpitude,’ and such actions ‘are wholly inconsistent with approved professional standards.’ McHenry, 605 So. 2d at 461.”

Bottom line:  This lawyer engaged in highly improper and criminal conduct and consented to an 18 month suspension; however, the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with that agreement and imposed disbarment.

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.

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, advice and representation 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 Ethics Alert to any person or entity please feel free do so as long as it is not for personal gain and you forward the entire email, including all contact information and disclaimers. 

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, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sex with client, Lawyer sex with client in jail, Lawyer soliciting sex with client in jail

California Supreme Court adopts new Bar ethics rules which (mostly) follow the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the California Supreme Court’s recent Order implementing new Bar ethics rules which are substantially patterned after the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  The California Supreme Court Order approving 69 new rules (42 of which were modified by the Court) along with the Court’s comments is here: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/Supreme%20Court%20Order%202018-05-09.pdf.

On May 10, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an order adopting a new set of California Rules of Professional Conduct patterned after the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which were first published by the ABA in 1983.  California will now join the other 49 states which have adopted ethics rules patterned after the ABA Model Rules.  California lawyers are also governed by the California Business Code. The new California Bar rules will take effect on November 1, 2018.

The new California Bar rules are not identical to the ABA Model Rules; however, and the new rules do not adopt Model Rule 1.14, which sets forth the obligations of lawyers who are representing clients with diminished capacity.  The new Bar rules implement streamlined advertising rules which substantially track the rules proposed by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL).

A table comparing the new California Bar rules with the ABA model rules which was prepared by the California Bar is here: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/2D_RRC/2017_CrossReferenceChart%20RulesByNumbering-v.2-031717.pdf

According to media reports, there is also back story related to the substantial efforts to align the California Bar rules with the ABA model rules (as well as the rest of the country).  An article published by the ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct in April 2017 outlines the history of “California’s multiyear initiative to update its standards governing lawyer conduct” to align with the ABA Model Rules templates.  That article is here:  https://www.bna.com/fate-california-rule-n57982086261/

Bottom line:  After a long effort by California lawyers, the state has now joined the 49 other states (including Florida in 1990), which have adopted versions of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility.

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 ABA Model Rules, Attorney Ethics, California adopts Model ABA Bar Rules, California Bar Rules 2018, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Professionalism