Tag Archives: Attorney Ethics

Tennessee lawyer disbarred for, inter alia, false and exaggerated time entries and making false statements in court under oath

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Tennessee Supreme Court opinion disbarring a lawyer for, inter alia, giving a false statement under oath, knowingly testifying falsely in a court proceeding, and seeking an unreasonable fee  The case is Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility v. Loring Edward Justice, Case No. E2017-01334-SC-R3-BP.  The link with the July 2, 2019 SC opinion is here: https://docs.tbpr.org/justice-2254-sc-decision.pdf.

According to the opinion, the lawyer made false and exaggerated time entries when he submitted a request for more than $103,000 in legal fees for the time that he spent fighting Lowe’s Home Centers over a discovery violation.  The lawyer also claimed his paralegal’s work as his own and falsely stated that he had kept “contemporaneous records” of the time he spent in the underlying discovery dispute.  The lawyer also submitted a “grossly exaggerated” fee itemization that included work for which he was not supposed to be paid.

A federal district judge had ordered that the lawyer be paid for the time that he spent locating and deposing a store human resources manager as a sanction for the store’s failure to disclose the name in discovery.  After questions arose about Justice’s legal billings, including seventeen items described as attorney time which were identical or nearly identical to invoices submitted by the lawyer’s paralegal, the judge declined to award fees to the lawyer..  In addition, other billings in the lawyer’s fee itemization were found to be for tasks that were “completely unrelated” to the issues in the dispute.

A Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel had recommended a one-year suspension rather than a disbarment and the lawyer, and the Board of Professional Responsibility appealed.  The hearing panel’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are here:  https://docs.tbpr.org/justice-2254-hp-judgment.pdf.

A judge assigned to hear the case later modified the suspension recommendation to disbarment, stating that the lawyer’s “intentional deceit” and “total lack of remorse” required disbarment.

The lengthy Supreme Court opinion stated that the evidence “furnishes an eminently sound factual basis for the hearing panel’s decision” and the judge’s modification of the sanction to disbarment.  In a footnote, the opinion stated that some of the lawyer’s arguments were “too outlandish to dignify with discussion”, including the argument that the trial judge’s given name illustrates bias. The footnote states: “Not only is this argument without merit, it is absurd.”  The opinion disbarred the lawyer.

Bottom line:  According to the very lengthy opinion, this lawyer apparently decided to fabricate his time, make false statements, and then continue to argue and claim that the fee was appropriate throughout the proceedings.  He and his lawyers also made arguments that were “too outlandish to dignify with discussion.”

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, dishonesty, Excessive fee, false statements, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer disbarment excessive fee and false statements to court, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, lawyer excessive fee, Lawyer excessive fees, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false testimony, Lawyer improper fees, Lawyer overbilling excessive fees, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sanctions lying in court document, Uncategorized

Ohio lawyer who passed $11.00 in cash to her jailed boyfriend faces six month stayed suspension

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Ohio Board of Professional Conduct report which recommends that an Ohio lawyer be suspended for six (6) months for passing $11.00 in cash under the table to her incarcerated boyfriend.  The case is Cincinnati Bar Association v. Virginia Maria Riggs-Horton, Case No. 2018-1757.  The link with the report and other documents in the case is here:  http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/caseinfo/2018/1757

The lawyer was convicted of the misdemeanor of promoting (passing) contraband and was given a suspended jail sentence. She then self-reported to the Cincinnati, Ohio, and Kentucky Bar Associations.

The Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct recommended the stayed suspension after the lawyer admitted that she passed the money to her boyfriend at a Kentucky detention center in August 2017 after he asked for cash for vending machines. The detention center rules prohibited money from being provided to prisoners without first being given to guards.  The lawyer stated that she was unaware of the prohibition.

The Ohio Supreme Court initially rejected the six month stayed suspension and remanded the case for a formal hearing.  A formal hearing was held before a Board panel on April 25, 2019, which again recommended the six month stayed suspension with conditions.  According to the report, the lawyer had no prior discipline and displayed a cooperative attitude in ethics proceedings. She also had a good reputation in the community.  The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct than adopted that recommendation in its report, which was filed with the Ohio Supreme Court on June 14, 2019.

Bottom line:  This lawyer passed $11.00 to her boyfriend under the table while visiting him in the jail, which was a violation of the jail rules and constituted the illegal passing of contraband.  The lawyer was then prosecuted and plead guilty to a misdemeanor and self-reported.  This was a very unfortunate learning experience for the 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

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conviction of passing contraband suspension, Lawyer criminal charge suspension, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer suspension for passing contraband to client in jail, Uncategorized

Florida Supreme Court rejects any Bar rule prohibiting lawyers from belonging to private services which refer to both lawyers and doctors

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court Opinion which rejected any Bar rule prohibiting lawyers from belonging to private services which refer to lawyers and doctors. The case is In Re: Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.22, Case No SC18-881.  The April 15, 2019 opinion is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/881/2018-881_disposition_145774_d25.pdf

A majority of the Florida Supreme Court (with Justice LaBarga dissenting) rejected any Bar rule that would have prohibited lawyers from belonging to services that refer callers for legal and other services stemming from the same incident.  In 2018, the Court issued an opinion implementing the Bar’s proposed qualifying provider rules and directed the Bar to draft and submit an additional rule prohibiting lawyers from using qualifying providers offering legal and other services stemming from the same event.

The April 15, 2019 opinion stated that, when the Court recommended a revision of Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22 last March, a majority of those justices wanted to further expand the rule to prohibit attorneys from belonging to referral services (now called qualifying providers) which refer callers for both legal and nonlegal services needed from the same event.  Those legal services are typically related to accidents or injuries where the callers need both medical and legal help.

The opinion referred to Justice Lawson’s partial dissent in the 2018 opinion and dismissed the case.  In his partial dissent in that case, Justice Lawson wrote that he disagreed with the majority only on requiring the Bar to submit a new rule banning lawyers from belonging to entities that also referred callers to other professional services emanating from the same incident. He noted the Special Committee on Lawyer Referral Services initially made that proposal in 2012. The Board of Governors considered that recommendation but instead voted that making certain disclosures to the client was sufficient.

In his partial dissent from the April 15, 2019 opinion, Justice Labarga noted that, in the 2018 opinion, “(the Court) comprehensively amended rule 4-7.22 to establish a single regulatory scheme under which lawyer participation in services that connect prospective clients to lawyers, such as matching services, are subject to the same restrictions as lawyer referral services, legal directories, and other similar services regulated by The Florida Bar.”

“Nevertheless, we expressed continued concern with respect to how certain lawyer referral services operate in Florida, particularly those that refer prospective clients to other professionals and occupational disciplines for services arising out of the same incident or transaction. I concurred in the conclusion that additional measures were needed to safeguard against potential harm…in my view, the amendments the majority rejects today are critical to ensure all services that connect prospective clients to lawyers first and foremost operate in a manner that protects and furthers the public interest.”

The dismissal of the pending case ends a multiple year review of the Bar’s lawyer referral service rules, which began when the Special Committee on Lawyer Referral Services of the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) submitted a report in 2012.  That report recommended stricter regulation of for-profit referral services and participating lawyers and among its recommendation was a prohibition of lawyers belonging to services that also referred callers to nonlegal services stemming from the same incident.

The BOG rejected the recommendation that lawyers be prohibited from lawyers belonging to services that also referred callers to nonlegal services stemming from the same incident stating that disclosures to the client were sufficient along with a requirement that the lawyer making such a referral must believe it is in the client’s best interest.

The Bar submitted those proposed revised rules to the Court in 2014.  The Court rejected those amendments and directed the Bar to submit a rule that required that all for-profit referral services be owned or managed by a Bar member and that lawyers could not belong to services that also referred callers for nonlegal work resulting from the same incident.

The BOG committee then redrafted the previously proposed rules and defined any company or service that links a lawyer and potential client as a “qualifying provider” when the participating lawyers are subject to Bar rules; however, the BOG rejected the proposed requirement that a Bar member own or manage a for-profit service or a prohibition on lawyers belonging to qualified providers that refer to others. Those revised proposed rule revisions were submitted to the court in 2016 and oral arguments were held in 2017.  Some justices closely questioned the Bar representative about the Bar’s failure to follow its earlier instructions.

Bottom line:  The issue of whether lawyers can participate with for profit services which refer to both lawyers and medical providers has been settled…for now.  Lawyers can continue to participate in such services and those services do not have to be owned solely by lawyers.

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 2018 Florida lawyer referral qualifying provider rule revisions, 2018 Florida lawyer referral service matching service rule revisions, Attorney Ethics, Florida 2018 lawyer referral service qualifying provider rule revisions', Florida Bar, Florida Bar 2016 Lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Referral Services, Uncategorized

New York lawyer receives four month suspension for “excessively aggressive” and threatening conduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent New York Appellate Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 4 months for engaging in aggressive, threatening, and bizarre conduct. The case is Matter of Bailey, 2019 NY Slip Op 02487 (April 2, 2019).  The disciplinary opinion is here: http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_02487.htm#2FN

The opinion states that the lawyer engaged in inappropriate conduct several times in 2016.  In one instance, the lawyer barged into an arbitration hearing at his law firm, started taking pictures with his telephone, and said: “This will be in the newspaper when I put this in there after we kick your asses.”

In a second matter, the lawyer threatened the resident of a building owned by a law firm client after that individual had alleged that the owner was overcharging tenants in an online post.  The lawyer demanded that the individual take down the post because it was defamatory and, when this did not occur, the lawyer sent a text to the individual stating that he would use “all means necessary” to protect his client.

The lawyer later called the individual, who recorded the conversation, and said that the resident should kill himself because he was worthless and that he would have him arrested.  The lawyer also said: “(y)ou have no idea what you stepped into . . . Welcome to my world. Now you’re my bitch . . . you’re gonna be paying for this heavily for the rest of your life.”

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) held a hearing on the matter and found that the lawyer’s conduct violated multiple New York disciplinary rules, including threatening criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter and conduct that adversely reflects on counsel’s fitness as a lawyer, and recommended that the lawyer be suspended for three months.

A referee was appointed, who found, inter alia, that the lawyer “engaged in excessively aggressive behavior while representing a client. . . . (,) failed to conduct himself within the bounds of propriety, and . . . violated one or another Rule.’ The Referee found that respondent had never apologized to the arbitrator, the witness whose testimony respondent interrupted, or to Mr. Dawson and “refuse(d) to take full responsibility for his actions, which would include admitting he knew that he was interrupting an arbitration, properly apologizing, and recognizing that his aggressive litigation tactics must be controlled.”  The referee recommended that the lawyer be suspended for 3 months.

The opinion rejected the lawyer’s argument for a public censure because he failed to apologize for his actions and he had been admonished in 2011 and 2014 for aggressive behavior and failing “to conduct himself within the bounds of propriety.”  The opinion also rejected the AGC and referee’s recommendation of a 3 month suspension and imposed a 4 month suspension “until further order of the Court” and required the lawyer to “engage in counseling for a period of up to one year, as determined and monitored by the New York City Bar Association’s Lawyer Assistance Program.”

Bottom line: this lawyer engaged in in bizarre and very aggressive conduct, including stating to an individual (on a recorded line): “Now you’re my bitch … you’re gonna be paying for this heavily for the rest of your life.”  The suspended the lawyer for 4 months and required that the lawyer participate in counseling supervised the Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program for 1 year.

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

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer bad conduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer suspension for “excessively aggressive” and threatening conduct, Lawyer threatening e-mails, Lawyer threats and discipline, Uncategorized

Ohio lawyer suspended for 1 year for engaging in “extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on paralegal for over 2 years is reinstated to practice

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Ohio Supreme Court reinstating a lawyer who was suspended for 1 year for “extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on a paralegal lasting over 2 years. The case is Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick, No. 2018-OHIO-2990. The 8/1/18 suspension opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2018/2018-Ohio-2990.pdf and the 3/11/19 reinstatement Order is here: https://supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2019/2019-ohio-821.pdf

The August 1, 2018 Ohio Supreme Court opinion suspending the lawyer described the lawyer’s conduct as follows: “(d)uring (the paralegal’s) two-and a-half year tenure, Skolnick berated her for her physical appearance, dress, education, and parenting skills. He called her a bitch, a ‘hoe’, a dirtbag, and a piece of shit, and he told her that he hoped she would die. And because (the paralegal) recorded her interactions with Skolnick on more than 30 occasions, we have had the opportunity to hear Skolnick’s outbursts for ourselves.”

“In addition, the lawyer ‘called (the paralegal) stupid, dumb, fat, ‘whorey,’ and bitch.’ Further, he remarked that she should give him ‘road head’ during a drive and falsely told an African American client that the paralegal “did not like black people.”

“The only explanation that Skolnick offered for his extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks on L.D. was that he had learned the lingo from rappers and hip-hop artists while practicing entertainment law and that he believed he was using the phrases in more of a humorous than a harmful way.” In addition, “(a)lthough (the lawyer) presented some evidence that he had been diagnosed with and was being treated for cyclothymic disorder and exhibited traits of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, the board declined to afford mitigating effect to those conditions because Skolnick did not present any evidence that they were causally related to his misconduct.”

The opinion found that the lawyer violated Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(h), prohibiting a lawyer from “engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law” and suspended the lawyer for one (1) year with the final 6 months deferred; however, on March 11, 2019, the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the lawyer. “On application for reinstatement by respondent, Howard Evan Skolnick, Attorney Registration No. 0061905, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio. Application granted. Howard Evan Skolnick reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.”

Bottom line: this lawyer engaged in extreme, obnoxious, and humiliating attacks” on his paralegal and tried to minimize and justify his conduct by claiming that he learned the “lingo” from “rappers and hip-hop artists” and was being treated for psychiatric disorders. The court imposed a 1 year suspension with the final 6 months deferred on August 1, 2018 and he was reinstated on March 11, 2019, approximately 7 months later.

Be careful out there.

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
http://www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier
about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer cumulative misconduct disruptive and obnoxiousl behavior, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer disbarment obnoxious and disruptive cumulative misconduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Uncategorized

Florida Bar obtains emergency suspension of lawyer for “waging a personal and public war on social media”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent emergency suspension of a Florida lawyer for allegedly “waging a personal and public war on social media against attorneys representing clients” and “resort(ing) to terrorist legal tactics.”  The case is: The Florida Bar v. Ashley Ann Krapacs, Case No.: SC-277 Lower Tribunal No(s) 2018-50,829 (17I)FES; 2018-50,851(17I);2019-50,081(17I) and The Florida Bar’s Petition for Emergency Suspension is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2019/277/2019-277_petition_72430_petition2dsuspension2028emergency29.pdf

According to the Petition, the lawyer “launched an attack of massive and continuous proportions” on social media and “(c)learly, respondent’s fury has no bounds.” The lawyer’s alleged “terrorist legal tactics” began after she moved to Florida and initiating a petition for a domestic violence injunction against a former boyfriend in Texas and lawyer Russell Williams represented the ex-boyfriend.  The lawyer dismissed the case; however, she then allegedly “began a social media blitz” on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube.

The lawyer allegedly called  Williams an “old white male attorney” and a “bully attorney” who had threatened to file a motion for sanctions against her if she did not dismiss the case.  She also stated that “opposing counsel flat-out LIED” and the judge ‘didn’t bat an eye.’”.  She also allegedly used the hashtag #holymisogyny on social media when talking about the case and accused the judge of membership in the “Old Boys Club.”

The lawyer also allegedly continued the misconduct in a YouTube video posted after Williams hired lawyer Nisha Bacchus to represent him and filed a lawsuit against the lawyer for Libel, Slander, Malicious Prosecution and Injunctive Relief.  In the video, the lawyer allegedly called Williams “a moron and a sexist and a bully” and said Bacchus was “a backstabbing traitor” for representing “misogynist pigs, misogynist bullies.”  “Also, she’s a door lawyer. Which is basically a lawyer who takes anything that walks in the door in any area of law.  Because you can’t do every area of law and do them all well. You just can’t. Some people try and they end up like Nisha Bacchus who are so hard up that they’ll take anything, including shit like this. So I almost feel bad for her because he’s playing her. It is really obvious from the way that she presents herself that she’ll take anything if the price is right. Or even if it’s not.”  The lawyer also used hashtags #sellout and #womanhater for Bacchus.

The Petition states that the lawyer made multiple posts on Facebook “accusing The Florida Bar of being corruptly influenced by Nisha Bacchus. Bacchus requested a domestic violence injunction against the lawyer after she posted a Home Alone meme showing a shotgun pointed at an individual and added the caption “when opposing counsel tries to use the same exact trick you saw in your last case.”  According to the Petition, “(o)n February 1, 2019, Judge Moon granted an indefinite Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking against (the lawyer) as a result of her actions toward Nisha Bacchus”

The Florida Supreme Court granted the emergency petition in an Order dated February 27, 2019 with 2 of the court’s seven justices dissenting and stating that they would not grant it.  The February 27, 2019 Supreme Court Order suspending the lawyer on an emergency basis is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2019/277/2019-277_disposition_145483_d31i.pdf.  A referee will be appointed.

Bottom line:  This Petition is highly unusual and there may be a question as to whether such conduct constitutes “great public harm” under the Florida bar Rule.  It will certainly be interesting to see how this drama plays out.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, false statements, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer discipline social media misuse, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics Facebook, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer sanctions for lying and posting on social media, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

Illinois disciplinary complaint alleges that lawyer lied about cancer to obtain delays in litigation and justify LSAT score

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Illinois disciplinary complaint that alleges that a lawyer falsely claimed that both he and a nonexistent son had stomach cancer in multiple false statements that began when he applied for admission to law school.  The disciplinary matter is: In the Matter of Vincenzo Field, Commission No. 2018PR00015.  The first amended disciplinary complaint was filed on February 8, 2019 and the link is here:  https://www.iardc.org/18PR0015CM.html

The amended disciplinary complaint alleges that the lawyer made the false cancer claims to courts as well as to his law school and that he made false statements to his former law firm regarding an expert witness who was supposedly unable to provide services because his daughter was hit by a car.

The amended complaint also alleges the lawyer falsely told his law school he had a score of 158 the first time he took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) because he recently had surgery for a stomach cancer called leiomyosarcoma. He also told the law school that he obtained a score 173 on a later LSAT after he allegedly recovered from the surgery.

The amended complaint further alleges that the lawyer used the false cancer tumor and surgery excuse in August and October 2013 when he asked for an extension to the discovery deadline in a litigation matter, and again in another case in December 2015 when he requested a discovery extension. He also allegedly asked for an extension to the deadline to file a court document in the 2013 matter and falsely stated that he had to fly to Montreal for a funeral.

Further, according to the amended complaint, in July 2016, the lawyer told lawyers in another litigation matter who were representing the government that his son was scheduled to undergo cancer surgery and that he would need an extension of time. He later said his son suffered from leiomyosarcoma.  The lawyer did not have a son.  The lawyer then allegedly admitted to the court in August 2016 that he had made the false statements and said that “this is something that I have never done before.”

The lawyer is represented by counsel in the disciplinary matter, and his answer to the initial complaint states that the lawyer had used the false cancer statement in his law school application because he suffered from depression and that the depression required him to take a leave of absence from his studies and affected his ability to perform on the LSAT.

The lawyer admitted to other factual allegations in his answer, but he denied that he acted in bad faith or with the intent to mislead.  He also denied that he had any serious illness and did not admit to any disciplinary rule violations.  The answer to the complaint is here:  https://www.iardc.org/ANS18pr0015.pdf

Bottom line:  If true, the allegations against this lawyer show a serious lack of integrity and truthfulness, to say the least.  If there is an underlying health condition, this should certainly not excuse the alleged conduct; however, it must be addressed, particularly since the lawyer (through his lawyers) denies that he has a “serious illness”.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, dishonesty, false statements, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false testimony, lawyer lying about cancer to obtain delays in litigation and justify LSAT score, misrepresentations