Florida lawyer who improperly advised clients regarding marijuana business resulting in their arrest and charged $799 for false marijuana card is disbarred

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion disbarring a Florida lawyer who, inter alia, incompetently advised a client regarding a marijuana growing business and charged individuals $799.00 for a falsified “patient identification card” he claimed could keep them from getting arrested for having or growing marijuana.    The case is The Florida Bar v. Ian James Christiansen (Case No. SC16-1081) (January 18, 2018).  The Supreme Court opinion is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc16-1081.pdf

According to the opinion, The Florida Bar filed a complaint against the Jacksonville lawyer in 2016, which was assigned to a referee who held hearings.  The referee found that “in 2013, less than three months after being admitted to The Florida Bar, Respondent founded IJC Law Group, P.A., and began offering legal services and advice to clients.  At the time, Respondent had no training in the area of medical marijuana. Six months later, Respondent formed Health Law Services (HLS), and five months after that, incorporated Cannabinoid Therapy Institute (CTI). Respondent listed IJC Law Group, P.A., as CTI’s registered agent and nonlawyer Christopher Ralph—a self-professed expert in the medical marijuana industry— represented himself as CTI’s director. Ralph was also the ‘Legal Administrator and Consultant’ for HLS.”

The referee also found that the lawyer charged clients $799 for a doctor’s visit through CTI.  If the doctor found a medical necessity for the client to use marijuana, the lawyer, through HLS, provided the client with an “Official Legal Certification” and patient identification card stating that he or she had received a marijuana prescription.

The referee also found that the “doctor” to whom the lawyer referred three of the clients was not licensed to practice medicine in Florida (and the clients were not told of this”.  Two of the lawyer’s clients were provided with an “Official Legal Certification” and a “grow sign” to be posted at their residence which stated that medical marijuana cultivation was underway. The third client was provided an “Official Legal Certification” that identified one of the clients with the “grow sign” as his “authorized agent” to produce cannabis medically necessary to treat his debilitating condition.

According to the opinion, “(t)his ‘Official Legal Certification’ purported to advise law enforcement of the client’s right to cannabis as a medical necessity. Respondent advised his clients, and his clients believed, that based on Florida law, the clients had a right to possess, use, and grow cannabis due to medical necessity and that they were protected by the affirmative defense of medical necessity. Respondent did not tell his clients that this affirmative defense would not apply, if at all, until after the clients were arrested, charged, and prosecuted.”

The referee found that a number of the lawyer’s clients were arrested and prosecuted after following the lawyer’s advice.  Somewhat unbelievably, the lawyer refused to refund the fees that he charged after the clients were charged.  The lawyer was ordered to refund the fees when the trial court granted the clients’ motion for disgorgement of attorney’s fees; however, he failed to comply with the order and filed an untimely notice of appeal, which was dismissed. He also failed to respond to the trial court’s order to show cause and failed to appear at the show cause hearing. The court granted the motion for order to show cause and issued a warrant for his arrest.

“In January 2015, the police responded to the residence of the clients with the ‘grow sign’ pursuant to a 911 call.  The next day, the clients contacted Respondent to ask him if they needed to dismantle their growing operation, in expectation that law enforcement would return, and were told by Respondent they had nothing to worry about and that he or someone from his office would contact law enforcement  to discuss the situation. There was no record that Respondent ever did this. In February 2015, a fully armed SWAT team raided the clients’ home, and they were arrested and charged with manufacture of cannabis, possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a place or structure for trafficking or manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of paraphernalia, and trafficking in cannabis in excess of twenty-five pounds. In response to their arrests, Respondent encouraged the clients to file an internal affairs report regarding the damage done to their home and belongings during the raid. The clients’ home, valuables, and vehicles were ultimately seized and detained for forfeiture.”

“The clients then hired a new attorney and accepted plea deals of three years’ probation, a $15,000 fine, and 100 hours of community service. One of the clients lost her nursing license of twenty-five years and the other lost his engineering job of fifteen years. In addition, their landlord sued them for damages to the home during the raid and lost rent. The landlord prevailed and obtained a judgment in excess of $25,000 against them.”

The referee recommended that the lawyer be found guilty of violating multiple Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, be suspended for two years, and pay the Bar’s costs.  Neither the Bar nor the lawyer filed petitions for review of the referee report and recommendations; however, on July 26, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order “requiring the lawyer to show cause why the recommended sanction should not be disapproved and a more severe sanction, including disbarment, be imposed.” The lawyer filed a response on August 10, 2017, and the Bar filed a reply on August 21, 2017.

After reviewing the response and reply, the Court found that disbarment was the appropriate sanction citing the lawyer’s incompetence and the extremely serious harm to clients. The opinion also noted that the lawyer “erroneously advised his clients and provided them with legally meaningless ‘Official Legal Certifications’ purportedly authorizing them to grow and use marijuana, based on determinations made by a physician not licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Several clients who relied upon Respondent’s erroneous advice were arrested and criminally prosecuted, and their lives were devastated. Further, during the criminal proceedings pertaining to the clients and during the proceedings in this disciplinary matter, Respondent continued to insist on the correctness of his clearly erroneous legal positions, until he was ordered to show cause to this Court why he should not be disbarred. We will not tolerate such misconduct by members of The Florida Bar.”  The opinion disbarred the lawyer effective immediately.

Bottom line:  This is a quite egregious example of a lawyer’s incompetence (or worse) resulting in a nightmare of consequences for the clients, including a SWAT team raid and criminal charges and convictions.  As this case shows, a lawyer’s advice to clients regarding allegedly legal marijuana growing businesses is fraught with uncertainly and the wrong advice may result in extremely serious consequences for the clients (and the lawyer), particularly with the recent by the recent announcement by the U.S. Attorney General that the federal government will enforce federal criminal laws related to marijuana even if it is legal in an individual state.

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

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, dishonesty, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer lack of competence, Lawyer lack of diligence, Lawyer lying to clients, Lawyer misconduct and fraud marijuana advice disbarment, Lawyer sanctions

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 Board of Governors votes to request the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether TIKD activities are UPL

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent media reports that the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors has voted to request that the Florida Supreme Court determine whether TIKD’s app and activities constitute the unlicensed practice of law (UPL).  As I previously blogged, TIKD filed a federal lawsuit against The Florida Bar and The Ticket Clinic in November 2017 alleging, inter alia, a conspiracy to force it to cease its business activities and that The Florida Bar’s procedures violate the antitrust laws under the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.

The federal 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) and I blogged about the TIKD federal lawsuit here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/startup-app-tikd-sues-florida-bar-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-florida-bar-moves-to-disqualify-former-president-from-case/, and here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2017/12/21/florida-bars-former-president-responds-and-opposes-bars-motion-to-disqualify-him-from-tikd-v-florida-bar-ticket-clinic-antitrust-suit/

According to media reports, at its December 2017 meeting, the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors accepted a recommendation from a Bar committee which concluded that TIKD is violating Florida law by practicing law without a license or providing false or misleading information to its customer to send the matter to the Florida Supreme Court for review and a potential injunction.

The BOG decision appears to have resulted, at least in part, from the federal lawsuit which was filed in November 2017 by TIKD, an entity with an internet application that assists individuals who receive traffic tickets by retaining a lawyer and promises its users that they will not get any points on their traffic record.  The company’s lawsuit against The Florida Bar and The Ticket Clinic alleges that The Ticket Clinic and The Florida Bar are conspiring to reduce competition, that The Ticket Clinic has made threats to TIKD lawyers, that the Bar’s procedures violate antitrust laws, and that TIKD has been deprived of revenue as a result of the conduct.

According to the federal lawsuit and media reports, The Ticket Clinic, a law firm that provides legal services and defends clients in traffic ticket matters, filed complaints with The Florida Bar claiming that TIKD is engaging in UPL, and also filed complaints against lawyers who have represented TIKD customers and has threatened to have them disbarred.

Bottom line:  As I previously blogged, the TIKD federal lawsuit is one of the first filed in Florida which directly alleges that The Florida Bar’s UPL procedures violate the Sherman Antitrust Act based upon the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners and, as added drama, the Bar filed a motion to disqualify its recent former president from representing TIKD in the lawsuit.  Now, The Florida Bar will ask the Florida Supreme Court to weigh in and provide a determination as to whether the TIKD app runs afoul of UPL and other Bar rules.

Again, stay tuned…and be careful out there!

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

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 BAR UPL antitrust, Florida Bar, Florida Bar TIKD antitrust lawsuit, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer antitrust, Lawyer assisting unlicensed practice of law, Lawyer assisting unlicensed practice of law (UPL), Lawyer assisting UPL, Lawyer independent professional judgment- AVVO and matching services, North Carolina Dental Board, North Carolina dental whitening case and UPL, TIKD UPL Bar request for Florida Supreme Court injunction, TIKD v. Florida Bar antitrust federal lawsuit, TIKD v. Florida Bar motion to disqualify ex-president, Unlicensed practice of law, Unlicensed practice of law antitrust lawsuit

Federal lawsuit filed by patent firm alleges, inter alia, that nonlawyer LegalZoom employees engaged in UPL on trademark applications

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent California federal lawsuit filed by Legalforce law firm which alleges, among other things, that nonlawyers at LegalZoom engaged in the practice of law on trademark applications.  The case style is Legalforce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., et al, Case No. 5:17-cv-07194-NC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California-San Jose Division).  The Complaint is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/367565873/Complaint-LegalForce-RAPC-v-LegalZoom

The lawsuit was filed in the California Northern District Court on December 19, 2017 by Legalforce, which states that it is “the largest law firm filer of trademarks before the USPTO in each of the last 5 years”.  The Complaint alleges that LegalZoom has engaged in “unauthorized practice of law, false advertising, unfair competition and other claims with respect to preparation and filing of trademark applications” before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the State Bars of Arizona, California and Texas are also named as defendants.

The lawsuit claims that the plaintiffs applied for two trademarks through LegalZoom and that the services provided constitute the practice of law. The complaint states that LegalZoom “trademark document specialists” who were not lawyers “provided legal advice to the plaintiffs by selecting classification and modifying the goods and services description from the template thereby applying specific law to facts.” The plaintiffs state that they recorded and transcribed relevant conversations with LegalZoom employees.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that LegalZoom’s actions constitute the practice of law and that the company engages in false and misleading advertising and unfair competition, and requests a permanent injunction prohibiting LegalZoom from engaging in the practice of law and other acts, compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution.

Bottom line: This patent law firm is suing LegalZoom for, among other things, engaging in the unlicensed practice of law and false advertising in federal court.  The lawsuit also names USPTO, a federal agency, and two state Bars as defendants.  If the court ultimately grants the injunction and rules in favor of the law firm (or refuses to grant the injunction and rules in favor of LegalZoom), it would be a very significant development in this area.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

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

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 joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, LegalForce v. LegalZoom federal lawsuit alleging UPL and deceptive advertising, LegalZoom, LegalZoom federal lawsuit, Unauthorized practice of law

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