Category Archives: Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet

ABA Formal Opinion 477 addresses lawyer ethical duties when transmitting client information over the internet

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss ABA Formal Opinion 477, which was issued on May 11, 2017. The opinions addresses a lawyer’s ethical responsibilities to secure client confidential information when transmitting the information over the internet.  The Formal Opinion is here: ABA Formal Opinion 477.

ABA Formal Opinion 477 is an update opinion which specifically addresses “securing communication of protected client information” over the internet.

The Formal Opinion states:  “(i)n Formal Opinion 99-413 this Committee addressed a lawyer’s confidentiality obligations for e-mail communications with clients.  While the basic obligations of confidentiality remain applicable today, the role and risks of technology in the practice of law have evolved since 1999 prompting the need to update Opinion 99-413.  Formal Opinion 99-413 concluded: ‘Lawyers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications made by all forms of e-mail, including unencrypted e-mail sent on the Internet, despite some risk of interception and disclosure. It therefore follows that its use is consistent with the duty under Rule 1.6 to use reasonable means to maintain the confidentiality of information relating to a client’s representation.’ (footnote omitted).”

“Unlike 1999 where multiple methods of communication were prevalent, today, many lawyers primarily use electronic means to communicate and exchange documents with clients, other lawyers, and even with other persons who are assisting a lawyer in delivering legal services to clients.”

The opinion concludes: “A lawyer generally may transmit information relating to the representation of a client over the internet without violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct where the lawyer has undertaken reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized access. However, a lawyer may be required to take special security precautions to protect against the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of client information when required by an agreement with the client or by law, or when the nature of the information requires a higher degree of security.”

Bottom line:  This ABA opinion addresses the ethical issues related to securing client communications when transmitting confidential information over the internet under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and is for guidance only and is not binding; however, the analysis would be applicable in most, if not all jurisdictions, including Florida.  Lawyers should consult the rules and ethics opinions of their jurisdiction for further guidance.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this ethics alert 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 ABA Formal Opinion- securing confidentiality over internet, ABA formal opinions, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyer technology competence

N.J. Supreme Court reverses reprimand and dismisses complaint against lawyer who posted allegedly confidential information on his website

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent New Jersey Supreme Court opinion reversing a Disciplinary Review Board’s reprimand recommendation and dismissing a complaint against lawyer who was alleged to have posted client confidential information on his website.  The disciplinary case is In the Matter of Jay J. Chatarpaul, Docket No. 15-134 (July 15, 2016).  The opinion is here: http://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1073877 and the Review Board’s Decision is here: http://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1068061

According to the Decision, the disciplinary complaint originated from a discrimination lawsuit filed by the lawyer against Rite Aid on behalf of his client Rameena Khan, which was ultimately settled. The settlement agreement stated:

Plaintiff’s Attorney agrees that as of the execution of this Agreement, it [sic] has removed: (a) any and all articles, blogs, or other writings that have been authored, posted, publicized or controlled by it [sic], which disparage or discuss the Lawsuit, Complaint, Federal Action, Amended Complaint, the Trial or the Appeal in any manner whatsoever, from the Internet and elsewhere, including but not limited to the articles attached hereto as Exhibit A; and (b) all hyperlinks and references to said articles from the Internet. In addition, [respondent] agrees not to write any further articles or blogs, or make any nonprivileged statements, regarding or referencing the Lawsuit, the Complaint, the Amended Complaint, the Federal Action, the Trial or the Appeal.

The lawyer had previously published an article on his website discussing, inter alia, the facts of the case and alleged errors made by the Superior Court Judge who presided over the case:

At trial, the case was assigned to Judge Christine Farrington. Judge Farrington was recently appointed as a judge of the Superior Court and took the bench in June 2010. Prior to being appointed judge, Judge Farrington spent 10 years as deputy counsel for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and worked in claims administration, risk management and environmental matters.  During the trial, Judge Farrington made various prejudicial comments suggesting lack of impartiality, improperly excluding [sic] evidence and testimonies, etc., which are the subject of a pending appeal. Judge Farrington excluded various documents and testimonies, including documents and witnesses relating to the unemployment appeals hearing, documents and witnesses relating to Ms. Lazzaro [sic] termination and replacement, and other matters that are the subject of an appeal. The plaintiff’s position is that the jury’s verdict in favor of Rite Aid was the product of many errors of the trial judge, including various comments suggesting favoritism towards the position of Rite Aid. The plaintiff is confident that the appellate courts would [sic] grant a new trial based on these perceived errors.

The lawyer testified that although “in retrospect, he should not have made such statements about the judge and her rulings, respondent did not believe they were unethical. Still, he would not publish such an article again because he did not want to be the subject of another ethics investigation.”

The New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics advised the lawyer to remove the article from his website because it allegedly contained client confidential information.  The lawyer removed the article from his website; however, it was still visible through a Google search.  The lawyer also argued that the information was public record and prohibiting him from publishing it would violate the First Amendment.

According to the Decision, “In respondent’s view, after the hyperlink had been removed from the law firm’s website, the article remained within the internet archives, but he did not know how to ‘get rid of that.'”  The Special Master found that the lawyer’s representations that he had removed the article constituted “gross negligence” since the article was still accessible on the internet, that the article violated the New Jersey lawyer advertising rules, and that the failure to remove the article was prejudicial to the administration of justice since the lawyer “failed to take reasonable and necessary steps to make sure the Kahn [sic] Article was completely removed from the Internet (especially after Respondent received the OAE’s April 8, 2013 letter), and that his failure to do so has unnecessarily consumed resources of the State.”

In the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board Decision, four members recommended a reprimand, one member voted for an admonition, and another member voted to dismiss the disciplinary matter.  The majority found that the article violated client confidentiality and that the lawyer failed to preserve his website pages for 3 years under N.J. Bar Rule 7.2(b) (b) (A copy or recording of an advertisement or communication shall be kept for three years after its last dissemination along with a record of when and where it was used.”  The Decision acknowledged that there was no precedent for applying the requirement to website pages.

The New Jersey Supreme rejected the Disciplinary Review Board’s reprimand recommendation and dismissed the complaint.  The opinion found that “the respondent’s conduct in revealing information that was a matter of public record under the circumstances here did not violate (the client confidentiality rule)” and “there is a lack of precedent for applying RPC 7.2(b) to impose discipline on an attorney for failure to retain webpages of the attorney’s or a law firm’s website.”  The opinion also recommended that the New Jersey advisory committee on professional ethics consider amending the rules to require lawyers to retain their webpages for a minimum period of time.

Bottom line:  The factual and procedural circumstances underlying this opinion are convoluted; however, the lawyer argued that the article that he posted on his website contained public record and prohibiting him from publishing the information would be a violation First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The opinion found that revealing information that is a matter of public record does not violate the New Jersey client confidentiality rules.

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.

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. 

My main office number, (727) 799-1688, is temporarily unavailable due to a telephone company issue.  Please call (727) 286-6625 (my rollover number) if you need to contact me immediately.   Thank you. 

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer dismissal of Bar complaint, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyer websites

Washington D.C. lawyer receives informal admonition for revealing client confidences in response to client’s negative website comments

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent informal admonishment of a Washington D.C. lawyer who responded to a client’s negative and critical comments and revealed confidential and specific information about her case, her emotional state, and confidential details about the attorney-client relationship.  The disciplinary case is In re John P. Mahoney, Bar Docket No. 2015-D141 and the ODC’s informal admonition letter is here: http://www.dcbar.org/discipline/informal_admonition/20150609Mahoney.pdf.

The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) sent the lawyer a letter dated June 9, 2016 stating that the his internet response to a client’s complaint violated D.C. Bar Rule 1.6 since it revealed attorney/client confidential information and there was no exception to the rule allowing the lawyer to reveal the confidences.  Further, the lawyer violated D.C. Bar Rule 8.4(c)  “when (he) posted a further response on the website concerning Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation of the client’s allegations and Disciplinary Counsel’s statements.”  According to the letter, the lawyer’s claim that he had been “cleared” of the charges in the complaint “was, at best, misleading…”.

The ODC letter states:

The client’s principal complaint was that your fees were excessive. She claimed that she had prepared most of the documents you submitted on her behalf and you billed her an inordinate number of hours to proof or edit the documents, but did not advise her that a concise account of the discrimination she suffered would suffice. She further alleged that the expenses you charged were unwarranted and unnecessary. The client also was critical of your representation of her during the mediation, including the settlement demand that you made on her behalf. She claimed that you were verbally abusive, leading to her terminating the relationship.

After the attorney-client relationship ended, the client posted comments about you on a website in which she was highly critical of you and the representation you provided. You responded to her comments and, in doing so, revealed specific information about her case, her emotional state, and what transpired during your attorney-client relationship – although you did not identify the client by name.

The letter found that there was no misconduct found in the lawyer’s underlying representation of the client.  Under the D.C. Bar rules, since the lawyer did not submit a written request for a hearing within 14 days of the ODC letter, the informal admonition constitutes final discipline.  The lawyer must also complete three hours of CLE related to a lawyer’s confidentiality obligations.

Bottom line:  This lawyer responded to what he believed were false allegations by a client on a public website and provided attorney/client confidential information in defending himself.  Unfortunately, responding  to internet allegations is not one of the exceptions to the Bar confidentiality rules (Rule 4-1.6 in Florida) which permits a lawyer to reveal client confidences.

As I have stated in my earlier blogs on this topic, in our digital/instant communication brave new world, it is much too easy to react quickly and badly to a  perceived slight, such as a bad client internet review.  Before responding to any internet postings, a lawyer must seriously consider the ethical implications and not act impulsively and reveal confidential information, which may result in a Bar investigation and potential sanctions.

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.

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. 

My main office number, (727) 799-1688, is temporarily unavailable due to a telephone company issue.  Please call (727) 286-6625 (my rollover number) if you need to contact me immediately.   Thank you. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer discipline social media misuse, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyers and social media

Colorado lawyer suspended for 18 months for disclosing confidential information in response to client internet criticism

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent disciplinary opinion suspending a Colorado lawyer for 18 months for disclosing confidential client information in response to their internet criticism.  The disciplinary opinion is People v. James C. Underhill Jr. Case No. 15PDJ040 (consolidated with 15PDJ044 and 15PDJ059) (August 12, 2015) and is here: http://www.coloradosupremecourt.us/PDJ/ConditionalAdmissions/Underhill,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2015PDJ040,%2015PDJ044,%2015PDJ059,%208-12-15.pdf.

The opinion approved the conditional admission of misconduct and suspended the lawyer from the practice of law for eighteen (18) months which will begin after his current suspension ends.  The lawyer admitted that he disclosed client confidential information in response to clients’ internet complaints about his fees or services in two client matters.

In the first matter, a married couple retained the lawyer to assist with the husband’s ongoing post-dissolution dispute with his former spouse. The clients could not pay all the fees up and the lawyer verbally agreed to monthly payments, with an initial $1,000.00 deposit; however, “he did not explain that he reserved the right to demand full payment at his sole discretion.  He collected an additional $200.00 for a ‘filing fee,’ though he took no action that required such a fee.”

The lawyer also “failed to adequately communicate with the clients and did not inform them of opposing counsel’s objections to their discovery responses. Underhill later threatened to withdraw in two business days unless the clients made full payment of all fees. When the couple terminated the representation, (lawyer) declined to refund the $200.00 ‘filing fee.’”

The clients posted complaints about the lawyer on two different websites. The lawyer responded with “internet postings that publicly shamed the couple by disclosing highly sensitive and confidential information gleaned from attorney-client discussions.”  The lawyer then sued the couple for defamation and communicated directly with them, although “he knew that the couple had retained counsel, (lawyer) communicated with them ex parte on several occasions, even though their counsel repeatedly implored him not to do so.”  When that suit was dismissed, the lawyer filed a second defamation action in a different court, “alleging without adequate factual basis that the couple had made other defamatory internet postings.”

In a second matter, the lawyer represented a couple  to renegotiate a lease for their business. The couple eventually became dissatisfied with the lawyer’s services and terminated him. The clients posted a complaint about the lawyer on the Better Business Bureau’s website. The lawyer responded by providing an attorney-client communication and making “uncomplimentary observations about and accusations against the couple based on confidential information related to the representation.”

The lawyer’s 18 month suspension will begin after he serves a current suspension of 3 months and one day for communicating directly with his former clients who were represented by counsel while on disciplinary probation. That disciplinary order is here: http://www.coloradosupremecourt.us/PDJ/OpinionsAndSummaries/Underhill,%20Revocation%20of%20Probation,%2012PDJ071,%206-29-15.pdf.

The suspension takes effect on October 1, 2015.  After the suspension period, he must apply for reinstatement and prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has been rehabilitated, that he has complied with the disciplinary orders and rules, and that he is fit to practice law. 

The lawyer was also suspended for one year and one day for trust account violations in 2012.  That disciplinary order is here:  http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PDJ/ConditionalAdmissions/Underhill,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2012PDJ071,%2010-1-12.pdf

According to the Colorado Supreme Court’s website, the opinions of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge are final orders and may be appealed to the Supreme Court; however, since the opinion approved an agreed conditional admission of misconduct, it will not be appealed.

Bottom line: This is yet another cautionary tale for lawyers practicing in the digital age.  As all lawyers know, attorney/client confidences must be preserved unless the client authorizes disclosure (preferably be in writing) or there is an exception to the confidentiality rule, such as defending a Bar complaint or malpractice action.  A client’s criticism of the lawyer on internet websites is certainly not one of those exceptions and revealing confidential information in response to criticism on those platforms is a violation of the Bar 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.

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, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Communication with clients, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer lack of communication with client, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer technology competence

New York ethics opinion states that lawyers cannot reveal client confidences solely to respond to a former client’s criticism on a lawyer-rating website

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent New York State Bar Association ethics opinion which states that lawyers cannot reveal client confidences solely to respond to a former client’s criticism on a lawyer-rating website. The opinion is: New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 1032 (10/30/2014) and the opinion is here: http://www.nysba.org/CustomTemplates/Content.aspx?id=52969.

A New York law firm sent a request for an opinion stating that it “believes that a ‘disgruntled’ former client has unfairly characterized the firm’s representation of the former client on a website that provides reviews of lawyers. A note posted by the former client said that the former client regretted the decision to retain the firm, and it asserted that the law firm provided inadequate services, communicated inadequately with the client, and did not achieve the client’s goals. The note said nothing about the merits of the underlying matter, and it did not refer to any particular communications with the law firm or any other confidential information. The former client has not filed or threatened a civil or disciplinary complaint or made any other application for civil or criminal relief.”

“The law firm disagrees with its erstwhile client’s depiction of its services and asserts that the firm achieved as good a result for the client as possible under the difficult circumstances presented. The firm wishes to respond to the former client’s criticism by telling its side of the story if it may do so consistently with its continuing duties to preserve a former client’s confidential information.”

The question posed was: “When a lawyer’s former client posts accusations about the lawyer’s services on a website, may the lawyer post a response on the website that tends to rebut the accusations by including confidential information relating to that client?”
The opinion discussed whether a lawyer “may rely on the ‘self-defense’ exception to the duty of confidentiality set forth in Rule 1.6, which as to former clients is incorporated by Rule 1.9(c). Rule 1.6(b)(5)(i) says that a lawyer ‘may reveal or use confidential information to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary … to defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees and associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct’ to disclose the former client’s confidential information in responding to a negative web posting, even though there is no actual or threatened proceeding against the lawyer.”

The opinion found that the above exception does not apply and that “(a) lawyer may not disclose client confidential information solely to respond to a former client’s criticism of the lawyer posted on a website that includes client reviews of lawyers.”

Bottom line: Lawyers be aware: according to this opinion, a lawyer may not include confidential information in responding to a negative posting by an ex-client (or current client for that matter) on a lawyer-rating website (or other third party website).

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.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
jcorsmeier@jac-law.com
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, lawyer ethics opinions Groupon type marketing, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyers and social media

Georgia lawyer reprimanded for violating lawyer/client confidentiality in responding to client’s negative internet reviews

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Georgia Supreme Court disciplinary opinion which imposed a reprimand on a lawyer who violated attorney/client confidentiality in response to negative reviews that a client had made on internet “consumer Internet pages”. The opinion is In the Matter of Margrett A. Skinner, Case No. S14Y0661 (Ga. Supreme Court 5/19/14) and the disciplinary opinion is here: http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s14y0661.pdf

According to the opinion, the lawyer submitted a petition for voluntary discipline for a review panel reprimand, which was rejected and a special master was assigned to conduct proceedings and hold proceedings and an evidentiary hearing. In his report, the special master found that a client retained the lawyer in July 2009 to represent her in an uncontested divorce, and paid $900.00, including $150.00 for the filing fee.

The client had no contact from the lawyer for six weeks and, after multiple attempts to contact the lawyer, the client was able to reach her in October 2009. The lawyer said that she had lost the documents that the client had given to her in July 2009. The lawyer and the client then met again and the lawyer then began to draft pleadings for the divorce. The initial drafts of the pleadings had multiple errors, and the lawyer and the client exchanged several drafts and communicated by e-mail about the status of the case in October and early November 2009. These communications ended by mid-November 2009 and there were no more communications until March 18, 2010, when the client told the lawyer that her husband would not sign the divorce papers without revisions.

There was a dispute over fees and expenses and the lawyer asked the client for an additional $185.00 for travel expenses and the filing fee. In April and early May 2010, the lawyer and the client exchanged e-mails about the request for additional fees and expenses. On May 18, 2010, the client told the lawyer that she had hired another lawyer and asked the lawyer to deliver her file to her new lawyer and refund $750.00. The lawyer said that she would not release the file unless she was paid. The lawyer eventually refunded $650.00 to the client; however, she never provided the file to the new lawyer, stating that it had only her “work product.” The new lawyer completed the divorce within three months of being retained.

The client then posted negative reviews of the lawyer on three “consumer Internet pages”. When the lawyer learned of the negative internet reviews, she posted an online response which contained personal and confidential information about the client which the lawyer had obtained in the course of the representation. The lawyer identified the client by name, identified the employer of the client, stated how much the client had paid, identified the county where the divorce had been filed, and stated that the client had a boyfriend.

The client subsequently filed a Bar complaint against. In her response in August 2011, the lawyer said that she would remove her posting from the internet; however, it was not removed until February 2012.

The special master held a hearing and found that the lawyer violated Georgia Bar Rule 1.4 (communication with client) when she failed to keep her client reasonably informed of the status of the divorce between July and October 2010, and Georgia Bar Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) when she disclosed confidential information about the client on the Internet. After discussing the underlying circumstances and mitigation, the special master recommended a public reprimand.

The disciplinary opinion stated “(i)n this case, the improper disclosure of confidential information was isolated and limited to a single client, it does not appear that the information worked or threatened substantial harm to the interests of the client, and there are significant mitigating circumstances.” The opinion imposed a public reprimand and required the lawyer to consult with the Georgia Bar’s Law Practice Management Program and implement any suggestions in her law practice.

Bottom line: As it is with personal digital/internet communication (including e-mail, texting, and facebook etc.), this is a clear example of how the internet can make it much too easy to react quickly and badly to a perceived slight, such as a bad client internet review. Before responding to any internet postings, a lawyer must seriously consider the ethical implications and not act impulsively, which this lawyer apparently did.

Let’s be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this Ethics Alert blog 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
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Communication with clients, Florida Lawyer Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyer sanctions

Illinois lawyer stipulates to a public reprimand for, inter alia, violating client confidences in her response to an unfavorable client review on AVVO

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will update my 9/9/13 blog and will discuss the January 15, 2014 Joint Stipulation between an Illinois lawyer and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission wherein the lawyer admitted to, inter alia, violating a client’s confidences when she posted a response to a client’s allegedly false AVVO post which went beyond what was necessary to defend herself.  The case is In the Matter of Betty Tsamis,Commission No. 2013PR00095 (1/15/14).  The Joint Stipulation is at http://www.iardc.org/HB_RB_Disp_Html.asp?id=11221.

The Joint Stipulation states that the following facts would be established regarding the allegations that the lawyer revealed client confidences in responding to the AVVO post:

“On September 6, 2012, Respondent agreed to represent Richard Rinehart (“Rinehart”) in matters related to Rinehart’s securing unemployment benefits from his former employer, American Airlines. American Airlines had terminated Rinehart’s employment as a flight attendant because Rinehart allegedly assaulted a fellow flight attendant during a flight. Rinehart paid Respondent $1,500 towards her fee.

Between September 6, 2012 and January 16, 2013, Respondent met with Rinehart on at least two occasions and obtained information from Rinehart concerning both his employment history at American Airlines and the alleged incident involving the other flight attendant. Respondent also reviewed Rinehart’s personnel file, which she had obtained from American Airlines.

On January 16, 2013, Respondent represented Rinehart at a telephonic hearing before the Illinois Department of Employment Security (“IDES”), at the conclusion of which the IDES determined to deny Rinehart unemployment benefits. Shortly thereafter, Rinehart terminated Respondent’s representation of him.  On or about February 5, 2013, Rinehart posted a client review of Respondent’s services on the legal referral website AVVO, in which he discussed his dissatisfaction with Respondent’s services.

On February 7, 2013 and February 8, 2013, Respondent contacted Rinehart by email and requested that Rinehart remove the February 5, 2013 posting about her from the AVVO website. Rinehart responded that he refused to remove the posting unless he received a copy of his files and a full refund of the $1,500 he had paid Respondent as fees.  Sometime between February 5, 2013 and April 10, 2013, AVVO removed Rinehart’s posting from its online client reviews of Respondent.

On April 10, 2013, Rinehart posted a second negative client review of Respondent on AVVO. Respondent replied to his post and revealed confidential information about his case. Respondent’s reply to Rinehart’s second posting contained information relating to her representation of Rinehart and exceeded what was necessary to respond to Rinehart’s accusations. (bold added).

Factors in mitigation.  Respondent was admitted to practice law in Illinois on May 4, 2006 and practices in Chicago where she concentrates her practice in the area of employment and civil rights law. Respondent has no prior disciplinary history. Respondent understands the seriousness of her misconduct and has expressed remorse for it. She has taken steps to more carefully manage her recordkeeping in order to minimize the likelihood of future errors involving her client fund account, so that future overdrafts do not occur. Those steps include reviewing client ledgers and settlement statements with greater detail before issuing checks, and ensuring that she deposits money into the client trust account to account for credit card fees.  If this matter proceeded to a hearing, several lawyers and clients would have testified to Respondent’s excellent reputation for truth and veracity.  The Administrator and Respondent agree and jointly recommend that a reprimand be administered by the Hearing Board pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770(h) and Commission.”

Bottom line:  As I previously stated, all communication via digital media is a potential minefield, which this case clearly illustrates.  Although lawyers are generally permitted to reveal confidences to defend allegations by clients against them and it appears that the lawyer was justified in her frustration with the (former) client, she agreed in the stipulation that she went too far by revealing confidential information that went beyond the information necessary to defend herself against the allegedly false statements made by the client in the AVVO post and she agreed to a public reprimand.

Let’s be careful out there!                      

Disclaimer:  this blog 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

 

 

 

N

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyers and social media