Category Archives: Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

Amended Comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-5.8, effective 2/1/18, clarifies client notice procedures when lawyers leave law firms

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the amended Comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-5.8, clarifying procedures when lawyers leave law firms, which became effective 2/1/18.  The Florida Bar filed a Petition with, inter alia, the proposed rule amendment with the Florida Supreme Court on October 15, 2016.  The Court approved the amended Comment in an opinion dated 11/9/17, and the revision became effective on February 1, 2018.  The SC case is: In re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Biennial Petition), 229 So.3d 1154 (Fla. 2017) and the opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-1961.pdf

Florida Bar Rule 4-5.8 sets forth the required procedures when a lawyer leaves a law firm or when a law firm dissolves. The text of the rule was not changed substantively; however, the Comment was been revised to clarify the procedures and address issues which frequently arise in these circumstances.  The revisions include the following:

  1. when a lawyer leaves a firm or the firm dissolves or changes its members, the departing lawyer and the firm “should engage in bona fide, good faith negotiations within a reasonable period of time” after the change is known, and notice to clients must be given “within a reasonable period of time.”  This revision clarifies the time frame for negotiations to be “within a reasonable time.”
  1. the required notice to clients may be made by telephone; however, proof of compliance ”may be difficult unless the notification is in writing.”  This clarifies that the notice to clients may be by telephone; however, proving compliance with the rule when notice is made this way “may be difficult.”
  1. client notice should be given to “current clients for whom the departing lawyer has provided significant legal services with direct client contact”; however, notice to clients with whom the departing lawyer had no direct contact is not required.  This revision clarifies to which clients the client notice must be sent.
  1. to comply with the rule, “both departing lawyers and the law firm should be given access to the names and contact information of all clients for whom the departing lawyer has provided significant legal services and with whom the lawyer has had direct contact.”
  1. when neither the departing lawyer nor the firm intend to continue representing a client, the client may be notified with a joint notice (or separately if the parties are unable agree on a joint notice); however, any obligations to give notice, protect the client’s interests on withdrawal, and obtain required court permission “may apply to both the departing lawyer and lawyers remaining in the firm.”  This clarifies that the client notice obligation may apply to the firm and the lawyer leaving the firm.

Bottom line:  This Bar Rule amendment clarifies some of the issues which come up frequently regarding notice to clients when lawyers leave law firms or the law firm breaks up or changes members.

Be careful out there.

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

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyers leaving law firms, Lawyers leaving law firms Bar Rule 4-5.8, Rule 4-5.8 amendment to comment 2018

Amended Florida Bar Rule 4-1.8(c) prohibiting soliciting any gift from a client or preparing instrument with any gift became effective 2/1/18

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss amended Florida Bar Rule 4-1.8(c), which prohibits a lawyer from soliciting any gift from a client or preparing an instrument with any gift for the client.  The Florida Bar filed a Petition that included the proposed rule amendment with the Florida Supreme Court on October 15, 2016.  In an opinion dated November 9, 2017, the Court approved amended Rule 4-1.8(c),, which became effective February 1, 2018.  The case cite is: In re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Biennial Petition), 229 So.3d 1154 (Fla. 2017) and the opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-1961.pdf

Previous Florida Bar Rule 4-1.8(c) prohibited lawyers from soliciting or accepting a “substantial” gift from a client or preparing a testamentary instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer a “substantial” gift; however, the rule did not define “substantial” and a potential rule violation was potentially subject to the Bar’s subjective interpretation of that word.

Amended Bar Rule 4-1.8(c) now prohibits lawyers from soliciting any gifts from clients or preparing an instrument for a client with a gift, regardless of the size of the gift.  Florida Bar Rule 4-1.8(c) as amended, is below:

RULE 4-1.8 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; PROHIBITED AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS

(c)  Gifts to Lawyer or Lawyer’s Family. A lawyer is prohibited from soliciting any gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this subdivision, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative with whom the lawyer or the client maintains a close, familial relationship.

The Comment to Rule 4-1.8 was also amended to state that a lawyer may prepare a document that appoints the lawyer, the lawyer’s firm, or a relative of the lawyer to a “fiduciary office” (such as a personal representative or trustee) only if “the client is properly informed, the appointment does not violate rule 4-1.7, the appointment is not the product of undue influence or improper solicitation by the lawyer, and the client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.”

The Comment further states that the lawyer should advise the client in writing that “a person who serves as a fiduciary is entitled to compensation, and that the lawyer may be eligible to receive compensation for serving as a fiduciary in addition to any attorneys’ fees that the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm may earn for serving as a lawyer for the fiduciary.” (emphasis supplied)

Bottom line:  This Bar Rule amendment clarifies the rule and a lawyer will now violate this rule if he or she solicits any gift from a client or prepares and instrument with a gift, regardless of the size of the gift.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under 4-1.8(c) gifts from clients, Amended Florida Bar 4-1.8(a) gifts from clients, Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer accepting or soliciting gifts from clients, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer gifts from clients

Pennsylvania Supreme Court disbars ex-judge who pled guilty to stealing cocaine held in court cases

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion disbarring a former judge who pled guilty to stealing cocaine, from an evidence locker in his courtroom for his own personal use for more than a year.  The case is Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Paul Michael Pozonsky (Case No. 123 DB 2015) (opinion issued January 18, 2018).  The opinion is here: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/123db2015-pozonsky.pdf#search=%22Paul Pozonsky%22.

According to the disciplinary opinion, “the judge . . . presided over criminal trials, juvenile delinquency hearings, and also directed the rehabilitative disposition of drug offenders in that county’s Drug Court, which he founded. Using his position as a jurist, he directed police officers and court personnel to bring cocaine, which was evidence in the cases over which he was presiding, to an evidence locker in his courtroom; whereupon, for over a year, he stole quantities of this illegal drug from that locker and used it for his own recreational purposes, all while continuing to preside over criminal prosecutions and imposing sentences on defendants for committing crimes which he himself was contemporaneously engaging in.”

“After Pozonsky’s illicit activities were discovered, he resigned his judicial commission and was convicted for his crimes. After considering all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding Pozonsky’s egregious misconduct while a commissioned judge, and taking into account the mitigating evidence he offered, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (“Disciplinary Board” or “Board”) issued a unanimous report detailing its factual findings and its recommendation that he be disbarred.”

The opinion further stated that “(t)here are few transgressions which more seriously undermine the public’s confidence and trust in the integrity of their judicial system, and which are as offensive to the high standards and principles which other members of the bench and bar strive so faithfully to uphold in the performance of their duties, than those committed by Pozonsky.”

The ex-judge pled guilty in 2015 to charges related to the theft of the cocaine, including misdemeanor theft, obstruction of justice, and misapplication of entrusted property and served one month in jail.

Oral arguments were held in April 2017 and the ex-judge stated in mitigation that he had accepted full responsibility for his conduct and engaged in community service, including working at a homeless mission and counseling others with addiction as mitigating factors in an effort to reduce the disciplinary sanction.  The court rejected the ex-judge’s argument that his addiction should be considered as a mitigating factor.

The disciplinary opinion concluded: “Because the evidence of record amply supports the Board’s findings and corresponding recommendation of disbarment, we order Pozonsky’s disbarment to both protect the public and to preserve the integrity of the legal profession.”

Bottom line:  This is an extremely egregious case of an apparently addicted judge who asked law enforcement to bring cocaine to his courtroom to “hold” in criminal cases (not sure how that would happen) and then stole the cocaine from the locker and used it for “his own recreational; purposes.”  A concurring opinion stated that disbarment was not automatic and mused that it was ironic that the ex-judge was not able to mitigate the disbarment by showing that he was addicted but agreed that disbarment was appropriate.

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, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Judicial ethics, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer disbarred stealing and using cocaine as judge, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misconduct stealing and suing drugs while judge

Florida Bar opposes lawyer initiated petition to make appeal court finding of frivolousness “conclusive” rule violation

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Bar’s response opposing the Petition initiated by a Florida lawyer to amend Florida Bar Rule 3-4.3 which states that a final decision of the Florida Supreme Court, Florida appeals court, or federal appellate court determining prosecution of a frivolous claim“ constitutes a conclusive determination of guilt of misconduct by the lawyer(s) who prosecuted such frivolous claim or defense for violation of Rule 4-3.1.”    The matter is The Florida Bar Re: Petition to Amend Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 3-4.3, 3-5.3, and 4-3.1 (Case No. SC17-1965).  The Response is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2017/1965/2017-1965_response_49952_response.pdf

The proposed rule amendment would add a section to Florida Bar Rule 3-4.3 (misconduct or minor misconduct), providing that if the Florida Supreme Court or any Florida or federal appellate court has determined that a court action violated F.S. §57.105, Florida appellate Rule 9.410, or Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that “constitutes a conclusive determination of guilt of misconduct by the lawyer(s) who prosecuted such frivolous claim or defense for violation of Rule 4-3.1.”

The proposed rule would also require a lawyer who has had such a ruling against him or her to notify the Bar within 10 days with copies to opposing counsel.  Bar counsel would docket the case and “The Florida Bar shall prosecute the misconduct in accordance with the rules considering the conclusive determination of a violation of Rule 4-3.1.”

The BOG Disciplinary Procedure Committee (DPC) voted 7-0 to oppose the proposed petition in November 2017 and the BOG voted unanimously to file a response opposing the petition at its December 8, 2017 meeting.  The Bar filed its response opposing the proposed amendment on December 29, 2018.

Bottom line:  As I previously stated, this is rare member initiated petition to amend the Florida Bar rules.  The rule amendment appears to be well intended; however, it is problematic and ill advised.  The Bar’s Response sets forth the reasons that the Bar opposes the rule amendment, including the fact that a civil case involves different parties, different rules and statutes, different goals, and lower evidentiary standards.

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, Florida Bar, Florida Bar - petition to make finding of frivolous filing conclusive proof of Bar rule violation, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer filing frivolous pleading, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sanctions for frivolous filings

The Florida Supreme Court rejects Bar proposed advertising Rule amendment on lawyers’ use of “expert” and “specialist”

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert update on the Bar’s proposed amendment to Florida Bar Rule 4-7.14 on lawyers’ of “specialization” and “expertise” in advertisements which was filed in response to the federal court opinion which found the rule unconstitutional.  The Bar filed an Omnibus Rules Petition with, inter alia, the proposed rule amendment with the Florida Supreme Court and the court issued an opinion on November 9, 2017 rejecting the proposed rule revisions.  The SC opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-1961.pdf#search=Bar

The proposed amendment would have prohibited a lawyer from stating that he or she is  “a specialist, an expert, or other variations of those terms” unless “the lawyer’s experience and training demonstrate specialized competence in the advertised area of practice that is reasonably comparable to that demonstrated by the standards of the Florida Certification Plan.”  If the lawyer’s area of expertise is an area in which the Bar approves certifications, the lawyer would be required to include “a reasonably prominent disclaimer that the lawyer is not board certified in that area of practice by The Florida Bar or another certification program.”  The court’s opinion states:

We decline to adopt the Bar’s proposal to amend Bar Rule 4-7.14 (Potentially Misleading Advertisements). The Bar proposes amendments to this rule in response to a decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, which held, in relevant part, that provisions in Bar Rule 4-7.14(a) broadly prohibiting lawyers who were not board certified from making truthful statements that they “specialize in” or “have expertise in” a particular field of practice were unconstitutional.

In response to this decision, the Bar recommended amending the rule in subdivision (a) (Potentially Misleading Advertisements) to add a new subdivision (a)(5), which would prohibit lawyers from using in their advertisements the terms “specialist,” “expert,” or other variations of those terms unless the lawyer meets one of the four criteria established in subdivisions (a)(5)(A)-(a)(5)(D). The criteria in subdivisions (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), and (a)(5)(C) are similar to those in other parts of rule 4-7.14. However, subdivision (a)(5)(D) would provide that a lawyer may identify as a “specialist” or “expert” if the lawyer’s “experience and training demonstrate specialized competence in an area of practice that is reasonably comparable to that demonstrated by the standards of the Florida Certification Plan set forth in chapter 6 of these rules”; if the area of claimed specialization or expertise is or falls within an area of practice under the Florida Certification Plan, the advertisement must include a reasonably prominent disclaimer that the lawyer is not board certified in that area of practice by the Bar or another certification program.

We are concerned that the Bar’s proposal here does not sufficiently address the district court’s decision, and that the language requiring that a lawyer’s experience be “reasonably comparable” to the Florida Certification Plan will prove to be problematic because it could lead to differing and inconsistent applications. Because we believe that this important issue requires further study, we decline to adopt the Bar’s proposed amendments to rule 4-7.14, and we refer this matter to The Florida Bar for additional consideration.

Bottom line:  I previously said that the proposed Bar rule amendment was problematic and may not comply with the federal district judge’s opinion finding that the rule violates the U.S. Constitution.  The Florida Supreme Court has declined to implement the revised rule and the Bar will now go back to the drawing board.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

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

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert  is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice, 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.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida 2013 comprehensive lawyer advertising rules, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising expert and specialist, Lawyer advertising specialties and certification, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer use of expertise and specialist in advertising and certification, Lawyers use of specialization and expertise ethics

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors finds that AVVO Advisor is a for-profit lawyer referral service and must comply with Bar Rules

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent decision by the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors to approve a BOG committee’s conclusion that AVVO Advisor is a for-profit lawyer referral service and must comply with the Florida Bar Rules related to those referral services.

According to a recent Bar Board of Governors informational release and the January 1, 2018 issue of the Florida Bar News, the BOG Review Committee on Professional Ethics responded to a lawyer inquiry regarding the status of AVVO Advisor and unanimously recommended that the lawyer be advised that Avvo Advisor, which is described as “a private for-profit company’s online system for connecting potential clients to lawyers for 15-minute consultations for $39”, is a lawyer referral service under Florida’s rules.  The Board of Governors voted unanimously at its December 8, 2018 meeting to approve the committee’s recommendation and opinion. The January 1, 2018 Florida Bar News article is here: https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2F3a1cd1f9be52b1f1852581fe004ede22.

As a for-profit lawyer referral service, AVVO Advisor will now be required to comply with Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22 or Florida lawyers will not be permitted to participate in the service.  Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22 requires that the services receive no payment that constitutes a division of fees, it must furnish or require lawyers to have professional liability insurance, it must affirmatively state in advertisements that the system is a lawyer referral service, and comply with the other requirements in the rule.   According to the BOG release, there are twenty-eight lawyer referral services which are current in their quarterly reports to The Florida Bar.

Florida Bar President-elect Designate John Stewart is quoted as stating: “This is a difficult question for this board, it’s going to set a lot of precedent for issues we are going to have to deal with that are related…The decision could affect a large number of our constituents. There are at least, anecdotally, a fair number of our constituents who participate in this program.”

The Florida Bar will provide a 90-day grace period on discipline under Rule 4-7.22 for lawyers who may be currently associated with Avvo Advisor. This would allow Avvo Advisor to file its first quarterly report and comply with Rule 4-7.22 or for the Florida lawyers to exercise other options if Avvo Advisor chooses not to follow Rule 4-7.22, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

The January 1, 2018 Florida Bar News, which went online on December 26, provides more information for Bar members about participating in Avvo Advisor.  The webpage “What you need to know about the Bar and AVVO Advisor” is here: https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2Fb5f5fefbce7ee680852581fe004f7f92.

Bottom line:  This decision by the BOG addresses only the Avvo Advisor service and it triggers the requirement that AVVO Advisor comply with Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22.  Those requirements include, inter alia, that there is no division of fees, that AVVO either have, or ensure that lawyers have, professional liability insurance, and that AVVO affirmatively state in any advertisements that it is a lawyer referral service.  If a lawyer is currently participating in this service, or is considering participating, he or she should act accordingly.

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, AVVO Advisor- BOG opinion re lawyer referral service, AVVO fee sharing and referral fee plans, Avvo legal services, fee sharing, Florida Bar, Florida Bar lawyer referral rule revisions, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer Referral Services, Lawyer responsibilities AVVO and Linkedin

Florida Bar’s former president responds and opposes Bar’s motion to disqualify him from TIKD v. Florida Bar/Ticket Clinic antitrust suit

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert Update which will discuss the recent responses to the Bar’s Motion to Disqualify by its former president, Ramon Abadin.  The Response claims, inter alia, that the information that received was public record; that even if it was confidential, it is not substantially related to the matter; he has no duty of loyalty; that the Bar did not object to his representation in the UPL matters; and that he will not be a necessary witness in the lawsuit.  The case is TIKD Services LLC, v. The Florida Bar, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-24103-MGC (U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida-Miami Division).

As I previously blogged, on December 1, 2017, The Florida Bar filed a Motion to Disqualify Ramón A. Abadin alleging that, during his 2015-16 term as president, he “was provided attorney-client and attorney work-product communications and advice about and involving the specific antitrust issues and allegations asserted in this action”, including an amicus brief that was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015).  In that opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the N.C. dental board did not have state action immunity because its decisions were final and not subject to review. The Florida Bar joined in an amicus brief in that case arguing state action immunity should apply.

The former Bar president and TIKD have now filed responses in opposition to the Bar’s Motion to Disqualify.  In his “Response on Behalf of Plaintiff’s Counsel Ramon Abadin in Opposition to The Florida Bar Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law” dated December 19, 2017, Mr. Abadin states:

Disqualification of Mr. Abadin is not warranted for the following reasons:

  1. Mr. Abadin is not in violation of specific Bar Rules regarding disqualification based upon prior service with the Bar;
  1. The alleged “confidential” information received when Mr. Abadin was an executive officer of The Florida Bar or a member of the Board of Governors regarding the Bar’s response to the Dental Examiners case (other than legal advice) is public information;
  1. Even assuming the information received by Mr. Abadin is confidential, such information is not relevant to the cause of action in this lawsuit and, therefore, is not substantially related to this matter and would not be used to the Bar’s disadvantage;
  1. Mr. Abadin’s fiduciary duty of loyalty to The Florida Bar ended when his service as President was complete, which was prior to the time Plaintiff was formed;
  1. The Florida Bar did not object to Mr. Abadin’s representation of Plaintiff in connection with the Bar’s UPL investigation; and
  1. Mr. Abadin is not a necessary witness, and Plaintiff does not intend to call Mr. Abadin as a witness on its behalf.

Bottom line:  As I previously stated, this is one of the first cases in Florida which directly alleges that The Florida Bar’s procedures violate the Sherman Antitrust Act based upon the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.  As an added element of drama, the Bar has filed a motion to disqualify Ramon Abadin, its recent former president, from representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Bar and Abadin and TIKD have now filed responses in opposition to the motion.

Stay tuned…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.

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

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, attorney/client privilege, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, Florida Bar TIKD antitrust lawsuit, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer antitrust, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, North Carolina Dental Board, North Carolina dental whitening case and UPL, TIKD v. Florida Bar antitrust federal lawsuit, TIKD v. Florida Bar motion to disqualify ex-president