Category Archives: Lawyer referral fees

Four south Florida lawyers arrested for involvement for illegal personal injury solicitation and provider kickbacks

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent arrests of four south Florida lawyers who are  alleged to have improperly and illegally obtained personal injury victims as clients and referred them to health care facilities which then paid them cash for the referrals.

According to media articles and criminal charging documents, four south Florida lawyers have been charged with crimes  ranging from money laundering to organized fraud and patient brokering.  The lawyers are Steven Slootsky, whose record Bar address is in Boca Raton, and Adam Hurtig, Mark Spatz, and Vincent Pravato, whose record Bar addresses are in Fort Lauderdale.  The lawyers were arrested on or about September 6, 2017.

The lawyers are alleged to have improperly and illegally obtained personal injury victims as clients and referred them to health care facilities which paid cash to the lawyers for the referrals.  According to arrest records, the lawyers allegedly paid runners from towing companies and body shops to improperly solicit victims of motor vehicle accidents.  Those individuals were allegedly then referred to clinics for medical treatment and the clinics would illegally pay for the referrals.

The arrest report states that the lawyers “were actively involved in illegal patient brokering and the unlawful solicitation of motor-vehicle accident victims throughout South Florida…after the patient was brokered to the health care facility, the facility was then able to begin treatment and bill the auto insurance companies for claims covered by the PIP benefits, which resulted in fraud on the insurance companies.”

It is illegal under federal law for a doctor, clinic, or other health care provider to pay for patient referrals and for a “patient broker” to receive kickbacks for sending patients to a health care provider.  It is also a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for an agent of a lawyer to improperly solicit a client, for a lawyer to pay non-lawyers and clinics for referrals, and for the lawyer to receive payment or a fee based upon an improper solicitation.  Of course, it is certainly a violation of the Florida Bar Rules to commit a crime.

Bottom line: I have heard anecdotally that these activities have been occurring in south Florida for many years (and potentially throughout our entire state, particularly in urban areas).  These lawyers are certainly presumed innocent unless and until they are proven guilty; however, if the allegations are shown to be true, this is an extremely unfortunate blight on the legal profession.  On the other hand, this could potentially discourage others from doing (or continuing to do) this in the future.

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

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, deceit, dishonesty, fee sharing, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising and solicitation, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer criminal conduct - kickbacks on referrals, Lawyer criminal kickbacks, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, lawyer illegal personal injury solicitation and provider kickbacks, lawyer improper solicitation through agents, Lawyer referral fees, Uncategorized

Potential Florida Bar ethics advisory opinion 17-2 will address lawyer referral fees and private client matching services

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent decision by the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) to consider a potential ethics advisory opinion to address the ethics issues surrounding lawyer referral fees and private client matching services.  The advisory opinion has not been drafted; however, the draft opinion will be identified as Proposed Advisory Opinion 17-2.

The Bar review began after a lawyer sent an ethics inquiry to The Florida Bar asking whether lawyers could participate with a private lawyer referral service which planned to charge a different set fee depending upon the type of case referred.  The lawyer referred to the system “as a ‘pay-per-lead’ structure.”

The lawyer’s inquiry was referred to the BOG and, at its July 21, 2017 meeting in Miami, the BOG unanimously approved the recommendation of the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics (BRCPE) that it be directed to prepare an advisory opinion on the inquiry, specifically whether lawyer referral services can charge a fee per referral and impose different fees for different types of cases.  The BRCPE has authority to decline drafting an opinion and the BOG could also decide not to issue the opinion if it is drafted.

If an ethics advisory opinion is drafted, it will address the ethics issues created when online entities (such as AVVO) rolled out programs which attempt to match potential clients with lawyers and which make different payments depending on the type of case.  The opinion would also address the Bar rules related to advertising and referral services.  Lawyers and others will be able to comment on the issues before any opinion is drafted and/or approved.

The Florida Bar Rules have long prohibited lawyers from sharing fees with private referral services.  The Bar’s Standing Committee on Advertising (SCA) also rejected “pay-per-lead” plans on previous appeals and the BOG rejected an appeal from a referral service that proposed a payment of $300.00 to participating lawyers for each referred and accepted case in 2012.

Other jurisdictions have published ethics opinions addressing these issues or are in the process of reviewing them.  As I reported in a recent Ethics Alert blog, New York Ethics Opinion 1132 (published August 8, 2017) found that New York lawyers are prohibited from participating in AVVO’s client referral services.  The opinion found that lawyers who participate in AVVO’s client referral services (and any similar services) would violate the New York Bar rules since they involve AVVO’s improper “vouching” for (recommendation of) the lawyer, improper lawyer referral fees, and improper fee sharing with a non-lawyer.

As background, The Florida Bar filed a petition with proposed Bar rule amendments with the Florida Supreme Court in 2015 addressing, inter alia, referral services that offer both legal and medical or other non-legal services. Those proposed rules would have allowed lawyers to participate in those services, as long as clients were informed about potential conflicts, there was no quid pro quo requiring the lawyer to send a referred client for medical or other services offered by the referral agency, and the lawyer’s independent judgment was not affected.

The Florida Supreme Court published an opinion on September 24, 2015 which declined to implement the rule revisions and instructed the Bar to draft rules that “preclude Florida lawyers from accepting referrals from any lawyer referral service that is not owned or operated by a member of the Bar.”    That opinion is here: 9/24/15 SC Opinion

The Florida Bar then filed revised rule amendments designating private entities which match lawyers with potential clients as “qualified providers” and requiring those entities to comply with the Bar rules, including a required review of the advertisements. Participating lawyers would not have been required to carry malpractice insurance.

The Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument in April 2017 and then published an order dismissing the petition on May 3, 2017. That order is here: 5/3/17 SC Order.  The order stated: “In this case, the Bar proposes amendments to rule 4-7.22 that do not comply with the Court’s direction concerning lawyer referral services that are not owned or operated by a member of the Bar and that seek to expand the scope of the rule to include “matching services” and other similar services not currently regulated by the Bar.

The May 3, 2017 Order also stated that the dismissal was without prejudice “to allow the members of this Court to engage in informed discussions with the Bar and those who are in favor or against the proposed regulation of matching and other similar services. The Court lacks sufficient background information on such services and their regulation at this time.”  A meeting was held at the June 2017 Bar Annual Convention in Boca Raton to discuss the issues and was attended by Justices, Bar officials, and representatives of private referral services.

The Bar’s Notice of the proposed ethics advisory opinion was published in the August 15, 2017 issue of the Florida Bar News.  The Bar’s Notice is here: 8/15/17 Notice of Proposed advisory opinion 17-2.

According to the Notice:  “The Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics will consider adopting a proposed advisory opinion at the direction of The Florida Bar Board of Governors based on an inquiry by a member of The Florida Bar, at a meeting to be held on Thursday, December 7, 2017, from 1-3 p.m. at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island.” and “comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on the issues presented. Comments must contain Proposed Advisory Opinion number 17-2, must clearly state the issues for the committee to consider, may offer suggestions for additional fee arrangements to be addressed by the proposed advisory opinion, and may include a proposed conclusion. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this publication.”

Bottom line:  If the ethics opinion is drafted and approved, Florida will join the growing list of jurisdictions addressing “marketing fees” taken from fees paid by private online entities to lawyers participating in client generation services.  This ethics opinion (like all ethics opinions) would be advisory and for guidance only.

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

1 Comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, er ethics opinion Avvo lawyer matching services improper fee splitting and referral fees, Florida Bar, Florida Bar 2016 Lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Bar lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Bar matching services, Florida ethics opinion 17-2- lawyer referrals by private referral matching services, Florida Lawyer Referral Services, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer improper fees, Lawyer improper referral fees and fee splitting, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer responsibilities AVVO and Linkedin

Proposed Florida Bar Advisory Opinion finds that lawyers may share fees with lawyers in firms owned with non-lawyers

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss Proposed Florida Bar Advisory Ethics Opinion 17-1 (June 23, 2017) which states that Florida Bar members may divide fees with out of state lawyers who are members of law firms which have non-lawyer ownership as permitted in the jurisdiction where the law firm is located.

The proposed ethics opinion is here:  https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2Fda5da7932958bb6a852581560062520c.  The proposed opinion is not final.  See below for details and opportunity to comment.

One of the issues that Florida lawyers who wish to co-counsel with out of state lawyers face is whether the lawyer can share fees with other lawyers who are members of law firm with non-lawyer owners as permitted in that jurisdiction.  Non-lawyer ownership of law firms is currently permitted in Washington, D.C. and the State of Washington in the U.S., the Canadian provinces Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, the countries of England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands, Brussels, and New Zealand.

The Professional Ethics Committee was asked by the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors to opine on whether Florida lawyers are permitted divide fees with out-of-state lawyers who are members of law firms in which there is nonlawyer ownership because nonlawyer ownership is allowed in the jurisdiction where the other law firm is located.  The proposed opinion found that such fee sharing “in accordance with Florida rules, law, and ethics opinions does not violate the prohibition against fee sharing set forth in Rule 4-5.4.” (emphasis supplied)

According to the proposed ethics opinion,

“Florida Bar members frequently work with lawyers outside their firms in representing clients. Florida Bar members also co-counsel cases with lawyers who are admitted solely in jurisdictions outside of Florida. Lawyers admitted solely in jurisdictions outside Florida are authorized to provide legal services in Florida under limited circumstances. Co-counselling with out-of-state lawyers thus raises potential concerns regarding assisting in the unlicensed practice of law and improper division of legal fees. Florida Bar members may divide fees with lawyers from other jurisdictions only where the out-of-state lawyers are providing legal services to the same client that the out-of-state lawyers are authorized by other law to provide and only in compliance with Florida Bar rules. See, Rules 4-1.5(g), 4-5.4(a), 4-5.5, and Florida Ethics Opinions 90-8, 88-10, and 62-3.

“Florida Bar members are prohibited from partnering or sharing legal fees with nonlawyers. See, Rule 4-5.4. Most U.S. jurisdictions share a similar prohibition. The only United States jurisdictions that currently permit nonlawyer ownership of law firms are Washington, D.C. and Washington state. Nonlawyer ownership of law firms is permitted in Canadian provinces Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands, Brussels, and New Zealand.

“Requirements and limitations on nonlawyer ownership vary in jurisdictions that allow it.

“This opinion addresses Florida Bar members in co-counseling and dividing fees with out-of-state lawyers with whom the Florida Bar members are permitted to divide fees as noted above, and in which the out-of-state lawyers practice in law firms with nonlawyer ownership as permitted by the other jurisdiction.

“The committee is of the opinion that sharing fees with an out-of-state lawyer in accordance with Florida rules, law, and ethics opinions does not violate the prohibition against fee sharing set forth in Rule 4-5.4. A Florida Bar member should not be subject to discipline merely because a nonlawyer ultimately may receive some part of the out-of-state lawyer’s fee solely by virtue of being an owner of the out-of-state law firm. The Florida Bar member has no control over the organization and ownership of the out-of-state firm. The out-of-state law firm may be organized in accordance with the rules of its own jurisdiction. The fact that the nonlawyer ownership would not be permitted in Florida should not impact what the out-of-state lawyer is permitted to do under the rules of that jurisdiction. To opine otherwise unnecessarily places Florida Bar members at risk and deprives clients of counsel of their own choosing from other jurisdictions.

“Other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have reached similar conclusions. See, ABA Formal Opinion 464 (2013); New York City Bar Formal Ethics Opinion 2015-8 (2015); and Philadelphia Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2010-7 (2010).

“ABA Formal Opinion 464 also cautions lawyers that they:

. . .must continue to comply with the requirement of Model Rule 5.4(c) to maintain professional independence. Even if the other law firm may be governed by different rules regarding relationships with nonlawyers, a lawyer must not permit a nonlawyer in the other firm to interfere with the lawyer’s own independent professional judgment. As noted above, the actual risk of improper influence is minimal. But the prohibition against improper nonlawyer influence continues regardless of the fee arrangement.

“The committee agrees with and adopts the reasoning of the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility in formal opinion 464 above.

“Finally, the committee notes that this opinion does not address a Florida Bar member becoming a partner, shareholder, associate, or other formal arrangement in a law firm that is permitted to have nonlawyer ownership in its home jurisdiction and does so in compliance with the rules of its home jurisdiction. Neither does this opinion address the issue of a Florida Bar member who also is admitted to practice in another jurisdiction where nonlawyer ownership is permitted joining a law firm with nonlawyer owners under the rules of the other jurisdiction.”

___________________

1Alternative Law Business Structures ABA Issue Paper (April 5, 2011) available at:http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/ethics_2020/abs_issues_paper.authcheckdam.pdf.

Bottom line:  This ethics opinion finds that sharing fees with lawyers who are members of law firms which have non-lawyer ownership does violate not the prohibition against fee sharing set forth in Florida Bar Rule 4-5.4; however, the opinion is not final.

According to the Bar’s Notice:

“Pursuant to Rule 4(c) and (d) of The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics, comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on the proposed opinion. The committee will consider any comments received at a meeting to be held in conjunction with The Florida Bar’s Fall Meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, October 13, 2017, at the Tampa Airport Marriott. Comments must contain the proposed advisory opinion number and clearly state the issues for the committee to consider. A written argument may be included explaining why the Florida Bar member believes the committee’s opinion is either correct or incorrect and may contain citations to relevant authorities. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this publication.”

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Bar rules fee agreements, Ethics Opinion sharing fees with non-lawyer owned law firms Rule 4-5.4, Fee sharing with non-lawyer owned firms, Florida Bar, Florida Bar ethics opinion sharing fees with non-lawyer owned law firms, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, lawyer fee splitting, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer sharing fees with non-lawyers, Uncategorized

Proposed Florida Bar Advisory Opinion finds that lawyers may share fees with lawyers in firms owned with non-lawyers

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss Proposed Florida Bar Advisory Ethics Opinion 17-1 (June 23, 2017) which states that Florida Bar members may divide fees with out of state lawyers who are members of law firms which have nonlawyer ownership as permitted in the jurisdiction where the law firm is located.

The proposed ethics opinion is here:  https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2Fda5da7932958bb6a852581560062520c.  The proposed opinion is not final.  See below for details and opportunity to comment.

One of the issues that Florida lawyers who wish to co-counsel with out of state lawyers face is whether the lawyer can share fees with other lawyers who are members of law firm with non-lawyer owners as permitted in that jurisdiction.  Non-lawyer ownership of law firms is currently permitted in Washington, D.C. and the State of Washington in the U.S., the Canadian provinces Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, the countries of England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands, Brussels, and New Zealand.

The Professional Ethics Committee was asked by the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors to opine on whether Florida lawyers are permitted divide fees with out-of-state lawyers who are members of law firms in which there is nonlawyer ownership because nonlawyer ownership is allowed in the jurisdiction where the other law firm is located.  The proposed opinion found that such fee sharing “in accordance with Florida rules, law, and ethics opinions does not violate the prohibition against fee sharing set forth in Rule 4-5.4.” (emphasis supplied)

According to the proposed ethics opinion,

“Florida Bar members frequently work with lawyers outside their firms in representing clients. Florida Bar members also co-counsel cases with lawyers who are admitted solely in jurisdictions outside of Florida. Lawyers admitted solely in jurisdictions outside Florida are authorized to provide legal services in Florida under limited circumstances. Co-counselling with out-of-state lawyers thus raises potential concerns regarding assisting in the unlicensed practice of law and improper division of legal fees. Florida Bar members may divide fees with lawyers from other jurisdictions only where the out-of-state lawyers are providing legal services to the same client that the out-of-state lawyers are authorized by other law to provide and only in compliance with Florida Bar rules. See, Rules 4-1.5(g), 4-5.4(a), 4-5.5, and Florida Ethics Opinions 90-8, 88-10, and 62-3.

“Florida Bar members are prohibited from partnering or sharing legal fees with nonlawyers. See, Rule 4-5.4. Most U.S. jurisdictions share a similar prohibition. The only United States jurisdictions that currently permit nonlawyer ownership of law firms are Washington, D.C. and Washington state. Nonlawyer ownership of law firms is permitted in Canadian provinces Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands, Brussels, and New Zealand.

“Requirements and limitations on nonlawyer ownership vary in jurisdictions that allow it.

“This opinion addresses Florida Bar members in co-counseling and dividing fees with out-of-state lawyers with whom the Florida Bar members are permitted to divide fees as noted above, and in which the out-of-state lawyers practice in law firms with nonlawyer ownership as permitted by the other jurisdiction.

“The committee is of the opinion that sharing fees with an out-of-state lawyer in accordance with Florida rules, law, and ethics opinions does not violate the prohibition against fee sharing set forth in Rule 4-5.4. A Florida Bar member should not be subject to discipline merely because a nonlawyer ultimately may receive some part of the out-of-state lawyer’s fee solely by virtue of being an owner of the out-of-state law firm. The Florida Bar member has no control over the organization and ownership of the out-of-state firm. The out-of-state law firm may be organized in accordance with the rules of its own jurisdiction. The fact that the nonlawyer ownership would not be permitted in Florida should not impact what the out-of-state lawyer is permitted to do under the rules of that jurisdiction. To opine otherwise unnecessarily places Florida Bar members at risk and deprives clients of counsel of their own choosing from other jurisdictions.

“Other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have reached similar conclusions. See, ABA Formal Opinion 464 (2013); New York City Bar Formal Ethics Opinion 2015-8 (2015); and Philadelphia Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2010-7 (2010).

“ABA Formal Opinion 464 also cautions lawyers that they:

. . .must continue to comply with the requirement of Model Rule 5.4(c) to maintain professional independence. Even if the other law firm may be governed by different rules regarding relationships with nonlawyers, a lawyer must not permit a nonlawyer in the other firm to interfere with the lawyer’s own independent professional judgment. As noted above, the actual risk of improper influence is minimal. But the prohibition against improper nonlawyer influence continues regardless of the fee arrangement.

“The committee agrees with and adopts the reasoning of the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility in formal opinion 464 above.

“Finally, the committee notes that this opinion does not address a Florida Bar member becoming a partner, shareholder, associate, or other formal arrangement in a law firm that is permitted to have nonlawyer ownership in its home jurisdiction and does so in compliance with the rules of its home jurisdiction. Neither does this opinion address the issue of a Florida Bar member who also is admitted to practice in another jurisdiction where nonlawyer ownership is permitted joining a law firm with nonlawyer owners under the rules of the other jurisdiction.”

___________________

1Alternative Law Business Structures ABA Issue Paper (April 5, 2011) available at:http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/ethics_2020/abs_issues_paper.authcheckdam.pdf.

Bottom line:  This ethics opinion finds that sharing fees with lawyers who are members of law firms which have non-lawyer ownership does violate not the prohibition against fee sharing set forth in Florida Bar Rule 4-5.4; however, the opinion is not final.

According to the Bar’s Notice:

“Pursuant to Rule 4(c) and (d) of The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics, comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on the proposed opinion. The committee will consider any comments received at a meeting to be held in conjunction with The Florida Bar’s Fall Meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, October 13, 2017, at the Tampa Airport Marriott. Comments must contain the proposed advisory opinion number and clearly state the issues for the committee to consider. A written argument may be included explaining why the Florida Bar member believes the committee’s opinion is either correct or incorrect and may contain citations to relevant authorities. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this publication.”

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Ethics Opinion sharing fees with non-lawyer owned law firms Rule 4-5.4, Fee sharing with non-lawyer owned firms, Florida Bar, Florida Bar ethics opinion sharing fees with non-lawyer owned law firms, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, lawyer fee splitting, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer sharing fees with non-lawyers, Non-lawyer ownership of law firms

ABA Ethics Opinion provides ethics requirements when lawyer receives an earned fee in which another lawyer has an interest

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent ABA Formal Ethics Opinion which addresses the ethical requirements when a lawyer receives an earned fee that is subject to a fee sharing arrangement and both lawyers have an interest in the fee.  The opinion is ABA Formal Opinion 475 (December 7, 2016) and is online here: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba_formal_opinion_475.authcheckdam.pdf.  The opinion discusses the ABA Model Rules which apply when lawyers agree to properly share a fee and one lawyer receives the earned fee.

According to the ABA opinion, “Model Rule 1.5(e) provides for the division of fees between lawyers who are not in the same firm.  A division of a fee “is a single billing to a client covering the fee of two or more lawyers who are not in the same firm.”  Rule 1.5(e) provides that such agreements are permissible only if the division is proportionate to the services performed by each lawyer or both lawyers assume joint responsibility for the representation, the client agrees to the arrangement including the share each lawyer ‘will receive, the arrangement is confirmed in writing, and the total fee is reasonable. Model Rule 1.15(a) provides in pertinent part that a lawyer shall hold property of…third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property.’”

The opinion states that “(t)he receiving lawyer…must, under Rule 1.15(a), deposit the funds in which co-counsel holds an interest in an account (typically a trust account) separate from the lawyer’s own property. Rule 1.15(d) requires the lawyer who receives the earned fees subject to a division agreement to promptly notify the other lawyer who holds an interest in the fee of receipt of the funds, promptly deliver to the other lawyer the agreed upon portion of the fee, and, if requested by the other lawyer, provide a full accounting.”

“Finally, if there is any dispute as to the interest of the receiving lawyer and the lawyer with whom the receiving lawyer is dividing a fee, Rule 1.15(e) requires that the receiving lawyer keep the disputed funds separate from the lawyer’s own property until the dispute is resolved.”

Bottom line:  “A lawyer may divide a fee with another lawyer who is not in the same firm if the arrangement meets the requirements of Model Rule 1.5(e). When one lawyer receives an earned fee that is subject to such an arrangement and both lawyers have an interest in that earned fee, Model Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) require that the receiving lawyer hold the funds in an account separate from the lawyer’s own property, appropriately safeguard the funds, promptly notify the other lawyer who holds an interest in the fee of receipt of the funds, promptly deliver to the other lawyer the agreed upon portion of the fee, and, if requested by the other lawyer, provide a full accounting”.  (Most states, including Florida, the same or substantially similar rules).

Lawyers must be aware that, according to this recent ABA opinion (which is not binding), when there is a fee sharing arrangement (referral or co-counsel fee), and the lawyer receives funds to which another lawyer has an interest, the receiving lawyer must hold the funds in a separate account, safeguard the funds, promptly notify the other lawyer, and provide an accounting if requested by the other lawyer.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under ABA Formal Ethics Opinion referral fees, ABA formal opinions, ABA opinion lawyer who receives earned fee when another lawyer has an interest- referral and co-counsel, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer fee agreements, lawyer fee splitting, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer trust accounts

South Carolina ethics advisory opinion states that matching legal services such as those offered by Avvo are prohibited

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent South Carolina ethics advisory opinion which states that marketing fees to non-lawyer companies collected as part of legal fees are prohibited.  The advisory opinion is here: http://www.scbar.org/Bar-Members/Ethics-Advisory-Opinions/Opinion-View/ArticleId/2455/Ethics-Advisory-Opinion-16-06

The July 14, 2016 ethics advisory opinion discusses a marketing program and fee arrangement similar to the one used by Avvo Legal Services.  Avvo states that the service matches lawyers willing to provide specific legal services to clients who pay a fee to Avvo, which includes a marketing fee.  Lawyers who participate then receive earned fees from Avvo once a month and Avvo takes its marketing fee from the lawyers in a separate transaction.

The South Carolina advisory opinion states that this type of fee arrangement/program constitutes improper fee sharing with non-lawyers, and, in the alternative, constitutes improper payment of a referral fee to a non-lawyer, which is also prohibited.

According to the opinion, “In the situation described above, the service collects the entire fee and transmits it to the attorney at the conclusion of the case. In a separate transaction, the service receives a fee for its efforts, which is apparently directly related to the amount of the fee earned in the case. The fact that there is a separate transaction in which the service is paid does not mean that the arrangement is not fee splitting as described in the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

“A lawyer cannot do indirectly what would be prohibited if done directly. Allowing the service to indirectly take a portion of the attorney’s fee by disguising it in two separate transactions does not negate the fact that the service is claiming a certain portion of the fee earned by the lawyer as its ‘per service marketing fee.’”

The opinion also states that marketing fees must represent the reasonable cost of the service, and these fees do not meet that criteria.  “Presumably, it does not cost the service any more to advertise online for a family law matter than for the preparation of corporate documents. There does not seem to be any rational basis for charging the attorney more for the advertising services of one type of case versus another.”

“The service, however, purports to charge the lawyer a fee based on the type of service the lawyer has performed rather than a fixed fee for the advertisement, or a fee per inquiry or “click.” In essence, the service’ s charges amount to a contingency advertising fee arrangement rather than a cost that can be assessed for reasonableness by looking at market rate or comparable services.”

Avvo representatives have previously stated that their “matching services” fee arrangement does not violate lawyer disciplinary rules.  I discussed Avvo’s program in my January 15, 2015 Ethics Alert, which is here:  https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/lawyer-directory-website-avvo-is-offering-fixed-fee-legal-services-on-a-limited-basis-and-plans-to-expand-the-services/

An online FAQ about the legal services program on Avvo’s website states that “(l)ocal clients purchase legal services, choose the attorney they want to work with, and pay the full price of the service up front. The chosen attorney then completes the service for the client and is paid the full legal fee. As a separate transaction, the chosen attorney pays a per-service marketing fee for the completed, paid service.”

Avvo General Counsel Josh King also stated in the FAQ that Avvo is not acting as a lawyer referral service and that lawyers should not be concerned about fee splitting since “(f)ee splits are not inherently unethical.  They only become a problem if the split creates a situation that may compromise a lawyer’s professional independence of judgment.  We believe that Avvo Legal Services fees, like credit card fees, would involve the sort of technical fee split that would not create such a potential for compromise.  Nonetheless, we have tried to keep things simple and clear by making the per-service marketing fee a separate charge.”

Bottom line:  The South Carolina ethics advisory opinion makes it clear that Avvo’s (and other similar) “matching service” arrangements constitute improper fee splitting and improper referral fees.  Lawyers who are interested in participating should carefully review their jurisdiction’s Bar rules and/or consult with and consult their Bar or consult with a lawyer familiar with their jurisdictions Bar rules before considering participation in the service.

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.

Please note:  Effective June 27, 2016, my new office address is:

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N., Suite 150, Clearwater, Florida 33761

E-mail addresses and telephone numbers below will remain the same. 

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Avvo legal services, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer improper referral fees and fee splitting, Lawyer matching services Avvo, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer Referral Services, Lawyer sharing fees with non-lawyers

Can a referring lawyer be held liable for the referral lawyer’s malpractice?

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss whether a lawyer could be potentially liable for another lawyer’s legal malpractice (and potential Bar rule violations) by making a referral.  The short answer is yes.  Of course, under the Florida Bar lawyer disciplinary rules and most, if not all, jurisdictions, it is certainly ethical for a lawyer to refer a case to another lawyer and receive a referral fee; however, there are certain requirements under the rules and the referring lawyer might be held liable for any malpractice by the referral lawyer.

In Noris v. Silver, 701 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997), which is here: http://www.legalmalpracticelawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/271/2012/03/Noris.pdf, the plaintiff was injured when a vehicle struck his bicycle in Chicago, Illinois. The plaintiff contacted an appellate attorney in Florida (Silver) who did not handle personal injury cases.  The Florida lawyer then referred the matter to another lawyer (Falk) to whom he had previously referred cases and received a referral fee.  The fee agreement with the referral lawyer did not disclose a fee arrangement with the referring lawyer, which violated Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(g).  The referral lawyer then failed to file the case before the expiration of the Illinois two-year statute of limitation for personal injury claims and the client sued the Illinois lawyer and the referring Florida lawyer for malpractice.

The opinion stated:  “In the instant case, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Silver retained a financial interest in plaintiff’s personal injury case by entering into an express or implied agreement to divide the legal fee.”  “This issue of fact is material because pursuant to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.5(g), if Falk and Silver agreed to divide the attorney’s fee, Silver would be liable for the malpractice committed by Falk.”

“Attorneys in different firms may divide fees under two circumstances: first, if the ‘division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer,’ R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(g)(1); and second, if the client agrees in writing and the agreement discloses “the basis upon which the division of fees will be made,’ R. Regulating Fla. Bar. 4-1.5(g)(2).  Moreover, when fees are divided pursuant to Rule 4-1.5(g)(2), ‘each lawyer assumes joint legal responsibility for the representation….’  Therefore, if Silver and Falk agreed to divide the attorney’s fee, Silver would be liable for the malpractice committed by Falk.” (emphasis added).

“It is true that if Falk had recovered attorney’s fees, Silver could not have enforced the purported oral agreement against Falk since the agreement did not comply with Rule 4-1.5(g)(2).  See Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So. 2d 180, 185 (Fla. 1995).  However, we find that the failure to comply with Rule 4-1.5(g) cannot be used to shield a referring attorney from a legal malpractice claim made by a client. (emphasis added). To hold otherwise would allow attorneys to thwart their responsibility to a client by intentionally disregarding the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. This cannot be condoned. It would also be unfair to lawyers who comply with Rule 4-1.5 to allow an avenue of escape for those who do not.  Accordingly, we hold that if Falk and Silver agreed to divide the attorney’s fees, then Silver is legally responsible for the malpractice committed by Falk.” (emphasis added).

“We point out that in order for the plaintiff to prevail, the plaintiff must prove that there was an express or implied agreement between the referring attorney, Silver, and the working attorney, Falk, to divide the legal fee. The plaintiff can prove this by showing that there was an express agreement for division of the fee. Alternatively, plaintiff can show that there was an implied agreement, for example by showing a past course of dealing whereby it was understood between the two attorneys that a fee would be paid in exchange for referrals. When the summary judgment record is read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as nonmoving party, the evidence supports the existence of an implied agreement for division of the fee in this case.”

Bottom line:  This case involved a lawyer who referred a personal injury matter which occurred in another state to a lawyer who practiced in that state.  In Chandris v. Yanakakis, the Florida Supreme Court stated that a contingent fee agreement between a Florida lawyer and an out of state law firm in a Florida case lawyer is void.  The opinion stated:  “We have determined that the requirements for contingent fee contracts are necessary to protect the public interest. Thus, a contract that fails to adhere to these requirements is against public policy and is not enforceable by the member of The Florida Bar who has violated the rule.”  (Emphasis added).  The opinion is here:  http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/82934/op-82934.pdf.

Lawyers must be aware that, in Florida (and most, if not all jurisdictions), if a matter is referred to another lawyer and the referring lawyer expects to receive a referral fee, there must be a written fee agreement which discloses “the basis upon which the division of fees will be made” and “each lawyer assumes joint legal responsibility for the representation.”

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.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule 4-1.5 resolution of extraordinary liens, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer referral fees legal malpractice, Lawyer referral fees void under Chandris, Lawyer referrals liability for legal malpractice