Tag Archives: Florida Bar

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors considers final action on proposed rule revision prohibiting misleading law firm information in all advertisements

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the potential final review of potential revisions to Florida Bar Rules 4-7.13 by the Florida Bar Board of Governors (BOG), which would prohibit misleading law firm information in advertisements.

The BOG’s agenda for its May 24, 2019 meeting includes final action on a proposed amendment to Rule 4-7.13 related to misleading digital advertisements.  As I previously reported, the BOG ethics committee previously voted down a proposal to add Bar Rule 4-7.13(c) which would have stated that “it is inherently misleading or deceptive for a lawyer to intentionally use, or arrange for the use of, the name of a lawyer not in the same firm or the name of another law firm as words or phrases that trigger the display of the lawyer’s advertising on the internet or other media, including directly or through a group advertising program.”

The revised proposed rule would prohibit all advertisements from stating or implying that a lawyer is affiliated with the advertising lawyer or law firm in a way that misleads a person searching either for a particular lawyer or law firm or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a different lawyer or law firm.  The proposed rule revision is below.

RULE 4-7.13 DECEPTIVE AND INHERENTLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS

(b) Examples of Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements. Deceptive or inherently misleading advertisements include, but are not limited to advertisements that contain:

(11) a statement or implication that another lawyer or law firm is part of, is associated with, or affiliated with the advertising law firm when that is not the case, including contact or other information presented in a way that misleads a person searching for a particular lawyer or law firm, or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a different lawyer or law firm.

Bottom line:  As I previously blogged, if the BOG takes final action on the proposed revised Rule 4-7.13 prohibiting all of these types of misleading advertisements (and if the Florida Supreme Court implements the revised rule), this would be consistent with other jurisdictions that have considered the issue.

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 Ethics, Bar rules deceptive and misleading advertisements Google AdWords, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule using GoogleAds words to misdirect to another firm, Florida Bar Rule- lawyer misleading law firm information in all advertising, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misleading law firm information in advertising, Uncategorized

Florida Bar Supreme Court opinion provides guidance regarding ethical payments to fact witnesses in litigation

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent (December 28, 2018) Florida Supreme Court opinion which discusses the ethical requirements surrounding witness fees and guidance lawyers regarding Florida Bar Rule 4-3.4(b) which prohibits inducements to fact witnesses to testify.  The case is: Trial Practices, Inc. v. Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP etc. No. SC17-2058 and the opinion is here: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/425462/4585484/file/sc17-2058.pdf

The underlying case involved a dispute between two business partners.  One of the partners hired Trial Practices, Inc. (TPI) for consulting services in the litigation, which ended in a mistrial and was later settled.  After the settlement, TPI claimed the 5% fee based on the value of certain transferred property and the settlement of related litigation involving the partners.

The partner denied owing TPI the 5% fee and claimed that the settlement agreement was a “walk away” agreement with no “gross recovery” to either side.  TPI then sued the partner for breach of the consulting agreement and, in the trial that followed, the jury found for the partner on all issues.  The partner then pursued attorney’s fees and costs from TPI, which challenged the costs, including approximately $236,000.00 paid to “seven fact witnesses’ professional firms,” some of which helped prepare the settlement agreement in the original litigation.

The Second District Court of Appeal upheld most of the trial court’s award of costs and fees to the partner, but certified a question to the Supreme Court as to whether Bar Rule 4-3.4(b) allows payments to witnesses for case and discovery preparation.  The court slightly rephrased the certified question as: 

Whether under the Bar rule a fact witness could be paid for “case and discovery preparation that is not directly related to the witness preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings.” 

The opinion (written by Justice Charles Canady) answers that question in the negative and cautioned lawyers to be careful when compensating witnesses to avoid any perception they are trying to influence the testimony in violation of Florida Bar Rule 4-3.4(b).  That rule prohibits offering inducements to witnesses except for expenses related to testifying, a reasonable fee for expert witnesses, and the language in the pre-2014 version at issue in the case, “reasonable compensation to reimburse a witness for the loss of compensation incurred by reason of preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings…”.  Bar Rule 4-3.4 was amended in 2014 to remove “reimburse” and “loss of compensation” from the language since that language arguably prohibited lawyers from compensating witnesses who have no income.

The opinion states that Rule 4-3.4(b) involves the balancing of concerns over offering or paying inducements for testimony and recognizing the value of the time expended by the witness and providing an incentive to assist with the “truth-seeking function of the trial process.”

“Athough we conclude that ‘preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings’ can reasonably be interpreted to include certain ‘assistance with case and discovery preparation,’ we also reiterate the importance of rule 4-3.4(b) and the prohibition against improperly influencing witnesses…(o)ur disciplinary cases have repeatedly noted – both in the context of rule 4-3.4(b) and otherwise – the importance of avoiding even the appearance of improper influence. Although we do not find these disciplinary cases to be on point, we emphasize the narrow nature of the issue we address here.”

Further:

“permitting payments for any type of ‘assistance with case and discovery preparation’ would not only be inconsistent with the rule’s plain language but could open the door to purchasing testimony under the pretext of such ‘assistance’ and compromise the integrity of the fact-finding process – the very thing rule 4-3.4(b) is designed to prevent. We thus decline to broadly conclude that ‘assistance with case and discovery preparation’ is subsumed within ‘preparing for, attending, or testifying at proceedings…(h)owever, we also recognize – as this case demonstrates – that there is room for overlap between the two categories. We therefore also decline to adopt a view that effectively treats the two categories as mutually exclusive.

“We think the more appropriate inquiry is whether the witness’s ‘assistance with case and discovery preparation’ is directly related to the witness ‘preparing, attending, or testifying at proceedings.’ Although less than perfectly precise, viewing the payments through that narrower lens is consistent with the language of the rule and avoids prejudicing parties in highly complex cases such as this where they are dependent upon professionals.”

The opinion remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Bottom line:  This opinion attempts to clarify the rule regarding ethical payments to fact witnesses in litigation which are not improper inducements and concludes that payments to fact witnesses are permitted only when the assistance of the witness with the case and discovery preparation is directly related to the witness preparing, attending, or testifying at proceedings.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Bar Rule 4-3.4(b) payments to fact witnesses, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court payments and inducements to fact witnesses, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics fact witness payments

Florida Bar Board of Governors approves Ethics Opinion addressing lawyer fee arrangements with qualifying providers

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Florida Bar Board of Governor’s (BOG) unanimous approval of Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-1 addressing fee arrangements between qualifying providers and participating lawyers to comply with amended Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22, which substantially revises the requirements for qualifying providers.  Ethics Opinion 18-1 is here: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2018/10/Proposed-Advisory-Op-18-1-website-10-12-18.pdf

At its December 14, 2018 meeting in Naples, the BOG approved Advisory Ethics Opinion 18-1, “Payments to Qualifying Providers/Lawyer Referral Services.” regarding for-profit qualifying providers, previously known as lawyer referral services, and related payment methods.  The BOG approved the Ethics Opinion unanimously without debate.

Under amended Bar Rule 4-7.22, which became effective in April 2018, a qualifying provider is, “any person, group, or persons, associations, organizations, or entities that receive any benefit or consideration, monetary or otherwise, for the direct or indirect referral of respective clients to the lawyers or law firm.”

The Comment to Rule 4-7.22 states:

“A lawyer may not participate with a qualifying provider that receives any legal fee that constitutes a division of legal fees with a non-lawyer unless the qualifying provider is The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service or a lawyer referral service approved by The Florida Bar pursuant to Chapter 8 of these rules,” the comment states. “A fee calculated as a percentage of the fee received by a lawyer, or based on the success or perceived value of the case, would be an improper division of legal fees…(a)dditionally, a fee that constitutes an improper division of fees occurs when the qualifying provider directs, regulates, or influences the lawyer’s professional judgement in rendering legal services to the client.”

Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-1 lists the following factors which “mitigate in favor of a conclusion that the charge is permissible”:

  1. The charge is reasonably based on the qualifying provider’s costs for marketing and administration plus a reasonable profit; and
  2. the charge is imposed regardless of whether the lawyer is hired by the prospective client.

The opinion lists the following factors which would “mitigate in favor of a conclusion that the charge is impermissible”:

  1. The charge is based on the perceived value of the individual matter.
  2. The qualifying provider collects the lawyers’ fees directly from the consumer, takes a portion of the fee as the charge for the referral or match, then remits the remainder to the lawyer.
  3. The qualifying provider interferes with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in representing clients or directs the lawyer’s activities in representing clients.
  4. There is sufficient incentive for the qualifying provider to improperly solicit prospective clients or improperly market the service.

The opinion states that: “the board believes the following would be permissible:”

  1. A reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge per time period such as weekly, monthly, or yearly;
  2. A reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge for each time a consumer views information about a specific lawyer, commonly referred to as “pay-per-click.”
  3. A reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge per matter referred to the lawyer that is not contingent on the outcome of the matter and does not vary based on the amount at issue in the matter.
  4. A reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge per matter referred to the lawyer that varies based on the type of matter only if the varying charge is based on demonstrably different marketing and administrative costs rather than the perceived value of the case.

The opinion states that: “the board believes the following would generally be impermissible”:

  1. A charge calculated as a percentage of the fee received by a lawyer.
  2. A charge calculated as a percentage of the client’s recovery in the matter.
  3. A charge based on the perceived value of the case referred to or accepted by a participating lawyer.
  4. A flat charge that differs based on the perceived value of the case referred to or accepted by a participating lawyer.
  5. A flat charge per case accepted by a participating lawyer.
  6. A flat charge per case accepted by a participating lawyer that differs based on the type of matter (e.g., personal injury versus family law).

The opinion states that it is designed solely to address what constitutes impermissible fee splitting, and that lawyers should not “assume that a lawyer may participate with a particular qualifying provider solely because the qualifying provider’s method of charging for its services falls within one of the methods the board concludes generally would be found to be permissible.”

Bottom line:  The Ethics Opinion identifies various fee arrangements between lawyers and qualifying providers which may or may not comply with the new rule.  Any lawyers who participate in (or are considering participating in) referrals from a private entity should carefully review this ethics opinion and the amended rule, since lawyers can be disciplined if the referral service (qualifying provider) fails to comply with the Florida 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.

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2018 Florida lawyer referral qualifying provider rule revisions, 2018 Florida lawyer referral service matching service rule revisions, Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Bar 2016 Lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 18-1 lawyer referral qualifying provider fees, Florida Bar ethics opinion qualifying provider- lawyer fees, Florida Bar lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Bar matching services, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Referral Services

Florida Supreme Court approves amended rule permitting lawyers to charge clients for actual merchant credit costs

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent (1/4/19) Florida Supreme Court opinion approving a revision to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(h), which will permit lawyers to charge a client the actual cost of accepting a credit payment. The amended rule(s) become effective March 5, 2019.

The Florida Supreme Court issued the opinion after The Florida Bar filed an omnibus petition proposing amendments to various Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.  The opinion approved the proposed amendment to Bar Rule 4-1.5(h) as follows:

“to replace the provision that “[n]o higher fee shall be charged and no additional charge shall be imposed by reason of a lawyer’s or law firm’s participation in a credit plan” with a statement that “[l]awyers may charge clients the actual charge the credit plan imposes on the lawyer for the client’s transaction.” By so doing, we hereby allow lawyers to pass on the actual costs resulting directly from a client’s choice to pay a bill or invoice with a credit card, or make payments under a credit plan, to that client.”

Bottom line:  When it becomes effective on March 5, 2019, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(h) will permit lawyers to charge the client the actual credit merchant charges.  This reverses the prior rule, which specifically prohibited charging the client for such merchant costs.

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 Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule permitting lawyers to charge clients with credit card merchant fees, Florida Bar rule permitting lawyers to charge credit card fees to clients, Florida Lawyers charging clients with merchant credit card charges, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer charging credit card fees to client

Florida Bar Board of Governors Ethics Committee will reconsider proposed revised Bar rules to prohibit misleading digital advertising

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Florida Bar Board of Governors’ (BOG) Professional Ethics Committee’s review of a proposal to amend Florida Bar Rule 4-7.13 to prohibit certain misleading digital advertisements at its December 2018 meeting.  A December 1, 2018 Florida Bar News article on the topic is here:  https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2Faac68d1f3167d80a85258347004f574f

The BOG Review Committee on Professional Ethics has scheduled a review of proposed Florida Bar Rule 4-7.13 revisions to address a common digital advertising practice known as search engine optimization offered by Google AdWords which allows an advertiser to use a competitor’s name to drive search engine traffic to the advertiser’s website.

The BOG ethics committee previously narrowly voted down a proposal to add Bar Rule 4-7.13(c) at its June 2018 meeting which would have stated that “it is inherently misleading or deceptive for a lawyer to intentionally use, or arrange for the use of, the name of a lawyer not in the same firm or the name of another law firm as words or phrases that trigger the display of the lawyer’s advertising on the internet or other media, including directly or through a group advertising program.”

The proposed rule to be reviewed by the BOG ethics committee contains an alternative proposal that would prohibit  advertisements from stating or implying that a lawyer is affiliated with the advertising lawyer or law firm in a way that misleads a person searching either for a particular lawyer or law firm or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a different lawyer or law firm.

The proposed rule revision is below with the new language in italics.

RULE 4-7.13 DECEPTIVE AND INHERENTLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS

(b) Examples of Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements. Deceptive or inherently misleading advertisements include, but are not limited to advertisements that contain:

(11) a statement or implication that another lawyer or law firm is part of, is associated with, or affiliated with the advertising law firm when that is not the case, including contact or other information presented in a way that misleads a person searching for a particular lawyer or law firm, or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a different lawyer or law firm.

Bottom line:  This proposed revised advertisement rule revision would address a common digital advertising practice known as search engine optimization offered by Google AdWords which allows an advertiser to use a competitor’s name to drive search engine traffic to the advertiser’s website, which has been alleged to be a violation of the Florida 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.

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, Bar rules deceptive and misleading advertisements Google AdWords, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule using GoogleAds words to misdirect to another firm, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising and solicitation, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer using GoogleAd words to misdirect users, Lawyer websites deceptive and misleading practices for SEO, misleading advertisement

Florida Supreme Court opinion finds that social media friendship with lawyer alone is not sufficient to disqualify judge

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent (11/15/18) Florida Supreme Court opinion which found that social media friendship with a lawyer, standing alone, is not sufficient to disqualify a judge.  The case is Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A. v. United Services Automobile Association, No. SC17-1848 (Fla. November 15, 2018) and the opinion is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc17-1848.pdf

In the split opinion, the Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between Florida Districts Courts of Appeal as to whether a judge must be disqualified if he or she is a “Facebook friend” with a lawyer appearing before the judge. The Third and Fifth Districts had held that social media friendship alone was not a sufficient basis to disqualify a judge.

The Fourth District, however, held that recusal is required when a judge is a Facebook “friend” with a criminal prosecutor.  The opinion discussed the previously held principle of Florida law that a “traditional friendship” between a judge and an attorney, without more, is not sufficient to disqualify a judge and extended that principle to social media friendships, finding that “an allegation that a trial judge is a Facebook ‘friend’ with an attorney appearing before the judge, standing alone, does not constitute a legally sufficient basis for disqualification.”  The opinion did caution that “particular friendship relationships may present such circumstances requiring disqualification.”

According to the opinion, the states of Arizona, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah have also found that a social media friendship between a judge and an attorney appearing before the judge standing alone, is not sufficient to disqualify the judge; however, a “minority” of states have found that social media friendships between judges and attorneys create an “appearance of impropriety” and may be prohibited.  The opinion lists the states of California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma as taking this position, along with Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-20 (which may now be withdrawn or revised).

The opinion concluded:

In some circumstances, the relationship between a judge and a litigant, lawyer, or other person involved in a case will be a basis for disqualification of the judge. Particular friendship relationships may present such circumstances requiring disqualification. But our case law clearly establishes that not every relationship characterized as a friendship provides a basis for disqualification. And there is no reason that Facebook “friendships”—which regularly involve strangers—should be singled out and subjected to a per se rule of disqualification.

Bottom line:  This Florida Supreme Court opinion (which was a split 4-3 decision) concludes that Florida judges are not subject to disqualification merely for being a “friend” of a lawyer on social media (specifically Facebook); however, there may be additional factual circumstances which may require disqualification.

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court opinion- Judge Facebook friends with lawyer not prohibited, joe corsmeier, Judge disqualification- Facebook friends with lawyer, Judges and lawyer friends on Facebook, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics Facebook

Florida lawyer suspended for hijacking former firm’s e-mail accounts and making disparaging comments on Facebook

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent Florida Supreme Court Order suspending a lawyer for, inter alia, hijacking his former firm’s e-mail accounts and making disparaging comments on Facebook.  The Supreme Court Order is here:  9/20/18 Florida Supreme Court Order-Paul Green

According to the report of referee, which is here:  8/20/18 Green Report of Referee, the lawyer was alleged to have retaliated against his former law firm after he was terminated by hijacking the firm’s e-mail account, posting false and disparaging comments on Facebook about the lawyer who fired him, and communicating inappropriately with a client.

The referee’s report states that the lawyer was fired from his law firm after he used the firm credit card for personal matters, took unauthorized draws from the firm, missed work and took vacations without discussing them with the owner of the firm, made political comments on the firm’s Facebook page, and wrote a derogatory text message about his wife’s lawyer during his divorce. The lawyer’s text said: “Tell Dana Price I hope she dies of dirty Jew AIDS.”

After being terminated, the lawyer changed the password to his former firm’s e-mail accounts and, when the firm turned off the lawyer’s telephones, he agreed to restore the e-mail access only if the firm turned his telephones back on.  After this occurred, however, the lawyer again blocked the firm’s access to e-mail and directed the e-mails to himself.

The lawyer also posted to the law firm’s Facebook page falsely claiming that the firm owner had been “Baker Acted”, a reference to the Florida law related involuntary commitments when a person has a mental condition which poses a danger to that person or to others. The lawyer’s Facebook post also said the letters sent by the former law firm to firm clients that the firm’s e-mails were hacked were untrue.

According to the referee’s report:

“On or about September 5, 2017, Respondent posted the following on Parker & Green, P.A.’s Facebook page:

If you’re wondering what’s going on…Patricia Parker was Baker Acted last Saturday. She has sent letters to all of you clients saying everything was hacked. It wasn’t but please be careful if you decide to go with the law office of Patricia L. Parker. Nothing was hacked but she is trying to get off her suicidal thoughts and is convincing clients she is ok. Don’t worry, my email still works and I am working with the Florida Bar to make sure she gets the help she needs. If you are a client, do not pay a bill until the Florida Bar decides what they will be doing with Ms. Parker. Any correspondence by Alix Diaz who has hacked email accounts owned by Mr. Green, should also be taken with a degree of skepticism. She’s been off her meds for a few months and things have finally taken their toll. I think her impending divorce to her husband for infidelity is part of the problem. If you’re trying to reach Mr. Green, he can still be reached at pgreen@itspersonaljax.com as he owns the domain and website.”

“A short time later in a second post on the firm’s page, Respondent stated:

Everyone should make sure their loved ones don’t need any mental help. Please check. If your brother, sister, father, mother, or business partner threaten to commit suicide … please get them help, before they hurt someone, themselves, or a trusted client. Luckily, Mr. Green doesn’t have that problem. pgreen@itspersonaljax.com.”

The lawyer told the false Baker Act story to a firm client he saw at Everbank Field in Jacksonville. He also said that the other lawyer in the firm had violated ethics rules and that he would finish the client’s case for free if she would make a statement about the other lawyer. He also told the client he would like to get together for drinks to discuss the case.  The lawyer sent numerous texts to the client; however, she did not respond and she subsequently filed a Florida Bar complaint against the lawyer. After the client filed her Bar complaint, the lawyer approached her while she was working as a bartender, slammed his hand down on the bar and said, “Good luck with that complaint.”

The referee recommended a 60 day suspension, a requirement that the lawyer contact Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. (FLA, Inc.) within 30 days for an evaluation and comply with all requirements of the evaluation, including an FLA, Inc. contract if one is recommended, and payment of the Bar and FLA costs.  The Florida Supreme Court Order adopted the findings of the referee and suspended the lawyer for 60 days with the recommended conditions.

Bottom line: This is a lawyer who engaged in improper conduct while with a law firm and then apparently went out of control after being terminated, including posting disparaging comments on social media.  The Court has suspended the lawyer for 60 days and required that he undergo an evaluation through FLA, Inc. and, if recommended, to comply with any and all treatment requirements in an FLA contract.

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under and other derogatory remark, and other derogatory remarks, Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, dishonesty, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer abusive e-mails, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false statements to clients, Lawyer hijacking former firm’s e-mail accounts and making disparaging comments on Facebook, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sanctions for lying and posting on social media, Lawyer social media ethics, lawyer suspension social media misconduct, Lawyer threatening e-mails, Lawyer threats and discipline