Tag Archives: Florida Bar

Florida Bar Board of Governors agrees with BOG Ethics and Bar Advertising Committees that “Results So Good, You’ll Think It’s Magic!” violates Bar Rules

Hello everyone and welcome to my first Ethics Alert of 2017 which will discuss the recent decision of the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) to uphold the opinion of the Bar’s Standing Committee on Advertising (SCA) and the recommendation of the BOG Ethics Committee (BRCPE) that a law firm’s “Results So Good, You’ll Think It’s Magic!” slogan violates the Bar Rules.

According to an article in the January 1, 2017 issue of The Florida Bar News, the SCA had opined that the law firm’s proposed name: “Ticket Wizards”, and a slogan: “Results So Good, You’ll Think It’s Magic!” violated two Florida Bar advertising rules: 1) promising results to potential clients; and 2) characterizing the “skills, experience, reputation, or record” of the firm in a way that the firm could not objectively verify.

After the SCA found against the law firm, it appealed to the BOG.  The BOG considered the matter at its recent meeting in Clearwater and, by a 24-20 vote agreed with the BRCPE and denied the appeal; however, it found the name and the picture of a wizard did not characterize the firm’s experience, skills, reputation, or record.  The BRCPE had recommended that the firm should only be permitted to use the name and image if it could objectively show it is a “master or expert” in that area of practice.  The BOG voted that the law firm could use the name and image if it could objectively verify the implications of the title and picture.

With regard to the slogan “Results So Good, You’ll Think It’s Magic!,” the BOG agreed that the slogan can “reasonably be construed as a prediction of success” and, therefore, it violated the Bar rules. The BOG also found that the slogan violated the rule against characterizing a firm’s “skills, reputation, character, or record “unless it is objectively verifiable.

Bottom line: It appears that the lesson here is that lawyers are prohibited from promising magical results (unless perhaps they are magicians?)…

Happy New Year to you and yours 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

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida 2013 comprehensive lawyer advertising rules, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising and solicitation, Lawyer advertising promising results, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer puffery

Florida mandatory technology lawyer CLE requirements and 33 hour requirement will begin with lawyer’s first reporting cycle after 1/1/17

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert Update which will clarify compliance with the Supreme Court of Florida’s opinion which approved increased total CLE from 30 to 33 and required three hours of continuing legal education in technology related areas/courses.

I have had questions regarding when compliance will begin and, according to the Bar’s website, compliance with the new CLE requirements will begin in the member’s next reporting cycle following the January 1, 2017, effective date.

As I said previously, Florida will become the first state to require technology CLE.  The Court’s opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2016/sc16-574.pdf.  Five of the 33 credit hours must be in approved legal ethics, professionalism, bias elimination, substance abuse, or mental illness awareness programs, and three of the 33 credit hours must be in approved technology programs, which are included in, and are not in addition to, the 33 hour CLE requirement.  The 33-hour requirement does not apply to Florida Registered Paralegals.

Bottom line: Beginning January 1, 2017, lawyers will be required to obtain 33 hours of CLE every 3 years with a minimum of three hours in technology related areas/courses beginning with their next full CLE cycle.

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 Florida 2017 increase in CLE hour requirments, Florida Bar, Florida lawyer 2017 technology CLE requirments, Florida lawyer continuing legal education technology and increase in hours, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

Florida Supreme Court adds three hours of technology to lawyer’s mandatory CLE requirements and increases total hours from 30 to 33

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida which approved proposed changes to Florida Bar rules mandating three hours of continuing legal education in technology related areas/courses.  Florida will become the first state to mandate technology CLE.  The opinion is In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.1 and 6-10.3, No. SC16-574 (September 29, 2016) and is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2016/sc16-574.pdf. The rule amendments will become effective on January 1, 2017.

The opinion adopted the recommendations of the The Florida Bar’s Vision 2016 Commission’s Technology Subcommittee.  The revision to rule 6-10.3 increases the CLE requirements for Florida lawyers from 30 to 33 hours of credit every three years and three hours must be in technology related areas/courses.

The opinion also amended the comment to rule 4-1.1 (Competence) “to add language providing that competent representation may involve a lawyer’s association with, or retention of, a non-lawyer advisor with established technological competence in the relevant field. Competent representation may also entail safeguarding confidential information related to the representation, including electronic transmissions and communications. Additionally, we add language to the comment providing that, in order to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should engage in continuing study and education, including an understanding of the risks and benefits associated with the use of technology.”

Bottom line: Beginning in January 2017, lawyers will be required to obtain 33 hours of CLE every 3 years (up from 30) with a minimum of three hours in technology related areas/courses.

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 lawyer CLE technology competence, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida lawyer technology competence rule 4-1.1, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer competence technology, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer lack of competence, Lawyer technology competence

Florida Bar will file petition with Florida Supreme Court with revisions to Rule 4-1.8(c) to prohibit a lawyer from soliciting any gifts from client

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the proposed revision to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.8(c), which would prohibit a lawyer from soliciting any gift from a client.  The BOG approved the rule amendments and the Bar will file an Omnibus Rules Petition with the proposed rule amendment with the Florida Supreme Court on October 15, 2016 (along with other proposed rule amendments).  The new Rule 4-1.8(c) language is below with new language underlined and proposed rule revisions are here:  2016 Annual Florida Bar Rules Proposals.

Current Florida Bar Rule 4-1.8(c) prohibits lawyers from soliciting or accepting a “substantial” gift from a client or preparing a testamentary instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer a substantial gift; however, one of the issues which comes up when a lawyer solicits or prepares an instrument with a gift from a client is whether it is “substantial”.  The Bar Rules do not define “substantial” and a potential rule violation is subject to the Bar’s subjective interpretation of the word.

If the revisions to the rule are implemented by the Florida Supreme Court, the plain language of the would prohibit lawyers from soliciting any gift from a client or soliciting or preparing a testamentary instrument of a client with any gift.  The proposed revised rule 4-1.8(c) is below:

RULE 4-1.8 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; PROHIBITED AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS

(c)  Gifts to Lawyer or Lawyer’s Family. A lawyer is prohibited from soliciting any gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this subdivision, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative with whom the lawyer or the client maintains a close, familial relationship.

According to the Bar’s notice: “Members who desire to comment on these proposed amendments may do so within 30 days of the filing of the Bar’s petition(s) (which will be 10/15/16). Comments must be filed directly with the clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, and a copy must be served on the executive director of The Florida Bar. Rule 1-12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, governs these proceedings.”

Bottom line:  If approved by the Florida Supreme Court, this revision would provide more clarity to lawyers regarding the acceptance of gifts; however, it will also mean that a lawyer will violate this rule if he or she accepts any gift from a client.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert  is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice, and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer gifts from clients, Lawyer soliciting or preparing instrument with gift from client

Florida Bar will file petition with Florida Supreme Court with revisions to Rule 4-5.8 to clarify which clients must be notified of lawyer’s departure

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the proposed additions to the Comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-5.8, which addresses the issue of what firm clients must be notified of a lawyer’s departure from the law firm.  The BOG approved the rule amendments and the Bar will file an Omnibus Rules Petition with the proposed rule amendment with the Florida Supreme Court on October 15, 2016 (along with other proposed rule amendments).  The new Rule 4-5.8 language and Comment is below with new language underlined and proposed rule revisions are here:  2016 Annual Florida Bar Rules Proposals.

RULE 4-5.8 PROCEDURES FOR LAWYERS LEAVING LAW FIRMS AND DISSOLUTION OF LAW FIRMS

(a) Contractual Relationship Between Law Firm and Clients. [no change]

(b) Client’s Right to Counsel of Choice. Clients have the right to expect that they may choose counsel when legal services are required and, with few exceptions, nothing that lawyers and law firms do affects the exercise of that right.

(c) Contact With Clients.

(1) Lawyers Leaving Law Firms. Absent a specific agreement otherwise, a lawyer who is leaving a law firm may not unilaterally contact those clients of the law firm for purposes of notifying them about the anticipated departure or to solicit representation of the clients unless the lawyer has approached an authorized representative of the law firm and attempted to negotiate a joint communication to the clients concerning the lawyer leaving the law firm and bona fide negotiations have been unsuccessful.

(2) Dissolution of Law Firm. Absent a specific agreement otherwise, a lawyer involved in the dissolution of a law firm may not unilaterally contact clients of the law firm unless, after bona fide negotiations, authorized members of the law firm have been unable to agree on a method to provide notice to clients.

***

Comment

***

Lawyers and firms should engage in bona fide, good faith negotiations within a reasonable period of time following their knowledge of either the anticipated change in firm composition or, if the anticipated change is unknown, within a reasonable period of time after the change in firm composition. The actual notification to clients should also occur within a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances, including the nature of the matters in which the lawyer represented the clients and whether the affected clients have deadlines that need to be met within a short period of time.

For purposes of this rule, clients who should be notified of the change in firm composition include current clients for whom the departing lawyer has provided significant legal services with direct client contact. Clients need not be notified of the departure of a lawyer with whom the client has had no direct contact. Clients whose files are closed need not be notified unless the former client contacts the firm, at which point the firm should notify the former client of the departure of any lawyer who performed significant legal services for that former client and had direct contact with that former client.

Although contact by telephone is not prohibited under this rule, proof of compliance with the requirements of this rule may be difficult unless the notification is in writing.

In order to comply with the requirements of this rule, both departing lawyers and the law firm should be given access to the names and contact information of all clients for whom the departing lawyer has provided significant legal services and with whom the lawyer has had direct contact.

If neither the departing lawyer nor the law firm intends to continue representation of the affected clients, they may either agree on a joint letter providing that information to those clients, or may separately notify the affected clients after bona fide, good faith negotiations have failed. Any obligation to give the client reasonable notice, protect the client’s interests on withdrawal, and seek permission of a court to withdraw may apply to both the departing lawyer and lawyers remaining in the firm. 

***

One of the issues which frequently comes up when a lawyer leaves a law firm is which clients must be notified of the lawyer’s departure under this rule.  The new Comment language addresses this issue and states that the “clients who should be notified of the change in firm composition include current clients for whom the departing lawyer has provided significant legal services with direct client contact.”  Of course, the language in the proposed rule is subject to interpretation; however, it should provide more guidance to lawyers and law firms regarding client notification when a lawyer leaves the firm.  The Comment also states that the “obligation to give the client reasonable notice, protect the client’s interests on withdrawal, and seek permission of a court to withdraw may apply to both the departing lawyer and lawyers remaining in the firm.”

According to the Bar’s notice of the proposed rule changes: “Members who desire to comment on these proposed amendments may do so within 30 days of the filing of the Bar’s petition(s). Comments must be filed directly with the clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, and a copy must be served on the executive director of The Florida Bar. Rule 1-12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, governs these proceedings.”

Bottom line:  If approved by the Florida Supreme Court, this revision should provide more guidance to lawyers and law firms in providing notice to clients; however, it will also require analysis and interpretation of the term “significant legal services with direct client contact”.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert  is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice, and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Departing lawyer and law firm responsibilities, Florida Bar Rule 4-5.8 2016 proposed amendment, Florida Bar Rule 4-5.8 lawyers leaving law firms, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyers leaving law firms