Tag Archives: Florida Supreme Court

Florida Bar Ethics Committee votes to publish proposed opinion providing guidance in responding to negative online reviews

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent vote by the Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee (PEC) to publish a proposed ethics advisory opinion providing guidance to lawyers in responding to negative online reviews and complaint for comment.  Proposed Ethics Advisory Opinion 20-1 is here: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/committee-adopts-ethics-opinion-regarding-online-reviews/

The PEC voted at its February 7, 2020 meeting to publish formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 20-1, which provides guidance to lawyers in responding to negative online reviews for comment by Florida Bar members.

The Florida Bar ethics staff previously issued Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049 in 2018 in response to a lawyer’s inquiry.  The BOG approved the staff opinion on June 15, 2018; however, since the opinion was a reply to a single lawyer, it was not published.  I discussed  Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049 provided a link to that opinion here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/florida-bar-professional-ethics-committee-approves-staff-opinion-addressing-lawyer-responses-to-negative-online-reviews/

That staff opinion was minimally revised by the PEC and will be published online and in print in The Florida News for Bar member comments. The proposed formal advisory opinion concludes:

“Therefore, if the inquirer chooses to respond to the negative online review and the inquirer does not obtain the former client’s informed consent to reveal confidential information, the inquirer must not reveal confidential information regarding the representation, but must only respond in a general way, such as that the inquirer disagrees with the client’s statements. The inquirer should not disclose that the court entered an order allowing the inquirer to withdraw because that is information relating to the client’s representation and the client did not give informed consent for the inquirer to disclose.”

The proposed advisory opinion states that Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6(c) provides 6 exceptions permitting or mandating that a lawyer reveal confidential client information; however, none of the exceptions addresses online reviews.  The proposed opinion also refers to the comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6, which states:

“A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client’s informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation….(t)he confidentiality rule applies not merely to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source.”

The proposed opinion states that the language in Texas Ethics Opinion 622 “would be an acceptable response” to negative online reviews:

“A lawyer’s duty to keep client confidences has few exceptions and in an abundance of caution I do not feel at liberty to respond in a point by point fashion in this forum. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that the post presents a fair and accurate picture of the events.”  “The (lawyer) also may state that the (lawyer) disagrees with the facts stated in the review.”

According to the Bar’s Notice, the PEC will consider any comments received at their meeting on Friday, June 19, 2020 in Orlando.

“Comments must contain the proposed advisory opinion number and clearly state the issues for the committee to consider. A written argument may be included explaining why the Florida Bar member believes the committee’s opinion is either correct or incorrect and may contain citations to relevant authorities. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than March 31, 2020.”

Bottom line:  Lawyers must be aware that negative online reviews do not fall within any of the exceptions which permit or require revealing confidential client information and, absent client informed consent, lawyers are not permitted to reveal confidential information in responding to the negative review.  In our digital and social media age, perhaps a change in the Bar Rule permitting such responses would be appropriate.

I will keep you advised 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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

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, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidences and negative online client review, Confidentiality, Florida Bar, Florida Bar ethics opinion responding to negative online review, Florida Bar Rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida proposed ethics opinion 20-1- response to negative online reviews, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer ethics responding to negative online review complaint confidentiality, Uncategorized

Florida Supreme Court removes juvenile delinquency and dependency questions from Florida Bar Examination Part A

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent Florida Supreme Court opinion which removed the topics of juvenile delinquency and dependency from Florida Bar Examination Part A effective immediately.  The case is In Re: Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules Relating to Admissions to the Bar, Case No. SC19-2018 and the January 23, 2020 opinion is here:  https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/569082/6430364/file/sc19-2018.pdf

In a per curiam opinion (without briefing or argument) dated January 23, 2020, the Supreme Court revised Rule 4-22 of the Supreme Court Rules Relating to Admissions to the Bar. The opinion states that the Court took action after an informal discussion last summer between the justices, the 12 Florida law school deans, and the Florida Board of Bar Examiners.

According to the Court’s opinion:

We remove these two subject areas because we agree with the law school deans that these subjects test specialized knowledge falling outside the general competency that the General Bar Examination is intended to test.  Rule 4-21 of the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar provides that the purpose of the General Bar Examination is to ‘test the applicant’s ability to reason logically, to analyze accurately the problem presented, and to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the fundamental principles of law and their application’.  We believe that amending rule 4-22 to eliminate these two subject areas will increase the validity of the Florida Bar Examination by allowing law school graduates to engage in more thoughtful analysis of core legal subjects instead of memorizing highly technical rules and information for a limited period of time.

These amendments shall take effect immediately upon the release of this opinion and will apply prospectively, beginning with the first 2020 examination. Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to their adoption, interested persons shall have seventy-five days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.

The opinion also states:  “Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to their adoption, interested persons shall have seventy-five days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.  In a footnote, the opinion states that comments must be filed via the E-Filing Portal on or before April 7, 2020.

Bottom line:  After informal discussions, the Court decided to remove the topics of juvenile delinquency and dependency from the Florida Bar Examination; however, the law school deans had also requested removal of Article 3 (negotiable instruments) and Article 9 (secured transactions) of the Uniform Commercial.  We will see if those topics are removed in the future and law students need to be aware that those topics will remain fair game on the Bar Examination.

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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

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 admission, Florida Bar examination, Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Florida General Bar Examination Part A, Uncategorized

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors approves proposed Bar rule amendment to pay inventory attorneys

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent Florida Bar Board of Governors (BOG) approval of proposed amendments to Florida Bar Rule 1-3.8, Right to Inventory, which would authorize payments to designated inventory attorneys to assist and wind up law practices of lawyers who die, disappear, or are otherwise unable to practice law.  The inventory attorney is also permitted to take over the representation of the previous lawyer’s clients if those clients consent.

The BOG voted to support the BOG Disciplinary Procedure Committee’s proposal at its December 6, 2019 meeting in Orlando.  The proposed rule revision has been under consideration since 2017 and had a first reading at the BOG’s December 2018 meeting; however, it was deferred for further review.

Florida Bar Rule 1-3.8 currently requires Florida Bar members to designate an inventory attorney to wind down the practices of lawyers who die, disappear, or are otherwise unable to practice law.  According to a Bar staff report, the Bar opened an average of 41.4 inventory cases each year during the past five years and each of the Bar’s five branch offices spend approximately 120 hours per year searching for inventory attorneys.

Under the proposed Bar rule revisions, an inventory lawyer who pursues payment for work performed would be required to submit an application detailing the work performed along with other information and request the payment.  The Executive Director of the Florida Bar would set the amount of payment with the approval of the BOG and the Bar would administer the payments.  The initial cost of the payments to inventory attorneys was estimated to be $100,000.00; however, the costs are expected to rise.

Proposed Rule 1-3.8(e) states:

(e) Payment of Inventory Lawyer. The Florida Bar may pay a fee set by the bar’s executive director as approved by the board of governors and within the bar’s annual budget for that year to a lawyer who agrees to conduct an inventory under this rule. Payment by The Florida Bar to an inventory lawyer will be made only with prior approval by the bar, on an application approved by the bar, and under parameters set by the bar.

The proposed Rule 1-3.8 amendments will be sent to the Florida Supreme Court for final review and potential implementation.

Bottom line:  This Bar Rule amendment is designed to address issues related to inventory attorneys and pay them for their work, presumably to encourage lawyers to become inventory attorneys.  I will follow this proposed Bar Rule amendment and keep you advised.

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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

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 Florida Bar, Florida Bar Rule 1-3.8, Florida Bar Rule 1-3.8 inventory attorney, Florida Bar rule revision to pay inventory attorneys, Florida Bar Rules, Florida Supreme Court, Inventory attorneys, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Uncategorized

Florida UPL Committee will consider New Jersey lawyer’s request for formal advisory opinion regarding remote practice from Florida

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss a New Jersey lawyer’s request for formal advisory opinion regarding remote practice related to non-Florida matters from his Florida home.  The lawyer’s request for the formal UPL opinion is here: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2019/12/Restaino_Request.pdf

The Florida Bar has provided notice that the Bar’s UPL Standing Committee will consider a New Jersey lawyer’s request for a formal advisory opinion on whether it constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for the lawyer, who is a Florida resident employed by a New Jersey law firm which has no place of business or office in Florida, to work remotely from his Florida home only on matters that concern federal intellectual property rights not Florida law) and without any public presence or profile in Florida as an attorney.

The Bar’s UPL Committee will hold a public hearing on February 7, 2020, at the Hyatt Regency Orlando Hotel, 9801 International Drive, Orlando, FL 32819 beginning at 9:00 a.m., to receive input on the question and testimony from interested individuals.  Written testimony can also be sent to The Florida Bar, UPL Dept., 651 E. Jefferson St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, or by e-mail before the hearing.

The February 7 hearing is the first step in the UPL formal advisory opinion process and, after the hearing, the committee will decide whether to issue a proposed opinion.  The committee has not previously considered the question and is not required to issue an opinion after the hearing.

Bottom line:  If the Florida Bar’s UPL Committee renders a formal opinion, it should provide guidance on the issue and any proposed opinion by the committee will be advisory only.

I will follow the issue and keep you advised…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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

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 rules remote practice by out of state lawyer, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Uncategorized, UPL Committee opinion re remote practice from Florida

Florida Bar files Petition with Florida Supreme Court for approval of “Registered Online Service Provider Program”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Petition filed by The Florida Bar with the Supreme Court of Florida for approval of an “Registered Online Service Provider Program”.  The case is In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar-Chapter 23 Online Service Provider Program and the Supreme Court case docket is here:  http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseByYear?CaseNumber=2077&CaseYear=2019

On December 12, 2019, The Florida Bar filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court requesting the court to approve the creation a voluntary registration program designed to address individuals are increasingly using the internet for their legal needs.  The petition proposes the creation of new Chapter 23 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which would be called the “Registered Online Service Provider Program”.  The program permits the voluntary registration of qualified online legal service providers and, according to the Bar, it ii an effort to assure greater access to legal services to better protect the public.

The proposed program was approved by the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors in September 2019 and would permit online legal service providers to market themselves as “Registered with The Florida Bar” if they agree to comply with various regulations, including submitting to the jurisdiction of Florida for the resolution of consumer complaints.

The proposed program would apply to entities which are already operating in a largely unregulated area and would specifically require the registered online providers to provide the Bar with copies of all consumer complaints and state how they were resolved, and agree that “registration and revocation of the registration. . . is solely at the discretion of The Florida Bar.”

The proposed program would also require that registered online providers use only forms that are approved by the Florida Supreme Court, or have been reviewed and approved by Florida Bar attorney. The providers would also be required to notify consumers which form they are providing.  The deadline for comments is January 13, 2020 and any comments must be filed directly with the clerk of the Florida Supreme Court, and a copy served on the executive director of The Florida Bar.

Bottom line:  This is an early attempt by The Florida Bar to regulate “online service providers” and with the incentive that those which voluntarily comply can state that they are “Registered with The Florida Bar”.  We will see if the Supreme Court approves the program and, if so, whether the service providers choose to voluntarily register and comply.

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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Please note:  My office has moved and the new office address is 2999 Alt. 19, Palm Harbor, FL 34683.  All other contact information remains the same.

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2020 Florida Bar non-lawyer Registered Online Service Provider Program, Florida Bar, Florida Bar Board of Governors online legal provider registration program, Florida Bar Chapter 23, Registered Online Services, Florida Bar non-lawyer Registered Online Service Provider Program, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Uncategorized

Florida woman who failed Florida Bar examination and started fictitious law firm charged with federal felonies

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss federal criminal charges filed against a woman who failed the Florida Bar examination, started a fraudulent law firm, engaged in the unlicensed practice of law, and committed aggravated identity theft and mail fraud.

According to the federal charges and Florida Bar records, Roberta Guedes attended Stetson law school with Agnieszka Piasecka and both graduated in 2014. They had planned to open a law firm together; however, Guedes did not pass the Florida Bar examination.  Piasecka passed the Bar examination and opened her own law firm, which handled wills and trusts, immigration, and dissolution matters.  Guedes offered Piasecka the free use of an office in Tampa and Piasecka used the office a few times to meet with clients.

According to court records, in September 2014, Guedes incorporated an entity she called Ferguson and McKenzie LLC and listed Piasecka as a registered agent without her knowledge. She also listed another individual, Arlete Chouinard, as a vice president and manager for the business without her knowledge.

In November 2014, Guedes incorporated another entity, Immigration and Litigation Law Office, Inc., and again listed Piasecka and Chouinard as officers. The incorporation documents listed a Tampa address.  Guedes used Chouinard’s name, social security number and other personal information to open bank accounts and multiple lines of credit and used the accounts for personal and business expenses for the two “firms”.

Guedes advertised the “firm’s” legal services, printed and handed out business cards bearing Piasecka’s name and her own, and created a website for the immigration “firm” which falsely listed Piasecka as an attorney.  Guedes also accepted fees to represent clients in legal matters.

An individual retained Guedes to assist her to bring her Brazilian daughter to the U.S.  The records related to the immigration matter had Guedes’ name and signature; however, it listed Piasecka’s Florida Bar number.

Another individual hired Guedes to help with a divorce from his Brazilian wife and she traveled with the man to an immigration hearing in Orlando and appeared before Immigration Judge Daniel Lippman.  Guedes represented herself as Piasecka at the hearing and also posed as Piasecka in a telephone call with the judge a few weeks later.

Guedes also appeared in a Hillsborough courtroom in December 2015 with a Tampa man who had sought her help in filing a domestic violence petition and who did not know she was not a lawyer.  She attempted to contact Judges Frances Perrone and Chet Tharpe requesting that his two cases be heard on the same day.

Judge Perrone granted this individual’s request for a temporary injunction and directed her judicial assistant to give his “lawyer” a courtesy call.  The judge and her judicial assistant could not find Guedes name listed as a Florida lawyer.  The judge’s office found Guedes’ telephone number through an internet search and, when the judge’s judicial assistant asked Guedes if she was a lawyer, she replied: “You can just scratch through that part (her signature on the court document).

The Florida Bar filed a 6 count petition with the Florida Supreme Court on May 14, 2018 alleging that Guedes engaged in the unlicensed practice of law.  The petition alleged that “Guedes accepted money and purported to represent “clients” in immigration and family law cases and failed to disclose that she was not licensed to practice. The Bar’s petition is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2018/728/2018-728_Petition_69809_PETITION2DUPL.pdf.

Guedes initially denied the allegations in the Bar’s petition and claimed that she had only assisted clients with court paperwork and translation services; however, in a Stipulation for Permanent Injunction filed with the Florida Supreme Court on March 22, 2019, Guedes agreed to refund the money that she had taken from the “clients” and a permanent injunction prohibiting her from holding herself out as a lawyer in the future.

The Florida Supreme Court issued an Order on May 2, 2019  permanently and perpetually” enjoining Guedes from engaging in the practice of law and requiring restitution in the amount of $3,782.00 as well as a $6,000.00 civil penalty.

Guedes signed a plea agreement on October 30, 2019 admitting to the federal charges of mail fraud and aggravated identity theft and a sentencing hearing has been scheduled for December 2019 in Tampa.  She faces a minimum of two years in prison.

Bottom line:  This lawyer completed law school and failed the Florida Bar examination; however, she was able to engage in the unlicensed practice of law in both state and federal immigration courts beginning in 2014.  The unlicensed practice of law was discovered by a Hillsborough County Circuit Court judge and was reported to The Florida Bar.  She was also investigated by federal prosecutors and charged with criminal fraud and identity theft and she will be sentenced on those charges in federal court in Tampa in December 2019.

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.

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Please note:  My office has moved and the new office address is 2999 Alt. 19, Palm Harbor, FL 34683.  All other contact information remains the same.

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under .S. Supreme Court, deceit, dishonesty, Federal felonies- UPL and federal U.S. mail identity fraud, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Non-lawyer unlicensed practice of law creation of false law firm, Uncategorized, Unlicensed practice of law, UPL fraud impersonating lawyer

Florida Supreme Court approves revised Bar advertising rule with requirements for lawyers to call themselves “experts” or “specialists”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion approving (with minor revisions) Bar Rule 4-7.14, which sets forth the requirements for Florida  lawyers to call themselves “experts” and “specialists”  in advertisements and other documents.  The case is In re: Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.14., Case No. SC18-2019.  The June 27, 2019 Supreme Court of Florida opinion is here: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/527989/5865891/file/sc18-2019.pdf.  The rule revisions become effective on August 26, 2019.

As I blogged previously here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/federal-district-judge-enjoins-the-florida-bar-from-enforcing-rule-prohibiting-truthful-claims-of-expertise/, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle found in 2015 that non-certified lawyers could have the skills and experience of certified lawyers and held that the Florida Bar Rule restricting the use of “expert” and “specialist” to lawyers who were certified by The Florida Bar (or its equivalent) was unconstitutional and he enjoined the Bar from enforcing it.  The Florida Bar did not appeal.

The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) imposed a moratorium on enforcing the rule as written and proposed rule amendments to comply with Judge Hinkle’s ruling; however, the Florida Supreme Court rejected them.  The BOG revised the proposed rule amendments and filed them in 2018.  The opinion approved the revised rule with minor revisions.

The revised Florida Bar Rule 4-7.14 states that lawyers may not claim to have specialization or expertise in an area of law unless they are certified by the Florida Bar, the American Bar Association, another Bar’s accredited plan, or “can objectively verify the claim based on the lawyer’s education, training, experience, or substantial involvement in the area of practice in which specialization or expertise is claimed.”  The Bar’s proposed draft rule stated “and substantial”; however, the court changed the “and” to “or”, which is an important revision.

In addition, a law firm may make that claim of expertise in an area of practice if it can show that at least one of its lawyers can meet those standards and if all firm lawyers cannot meet those standards, it must have a disclaimer that not all of its lawyers specialize or have expertise in that area of practice.  Revisions were also made to the rule comments stating that a lawyer who is “of counsel” to a law firm would permit the firm to claim specialization and expertise if the “of counsel” practices solely with that firm.

Bottom line: The revised Florida Bar rule has been in development since 2015 and the Supreme Court rejected a previous version of the proposed rule.  The rule will now permit lawyers to call themselves “experts” or “specialists” if they are certified by the Florida Bar, the American Bar Association, another Bar’s accredited plan,  if the lawyer “can objectively verify the claim based on the lawyer’s education, training, experience, or substantial involvement in the area of practice in which specialization or expertise is claimed.”

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 Lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising and solicitation, Lawyer advertising expert and specialist, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer advertising specialties and certification, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Professionalism, Lawyer use of expertise and specialist in advertising and certification, Lawyers use of specialization and expertise ethics, New Florida Bar Rule 4-7.14 use of expert and specialist, Uncategorized