Tag Archives: joseph corsmeier

Utah Supreme Court approves pilot program to permit non-traditional legal services, including non-lawyer firm ownership

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the unanimous Utah Supreme Court approval of a pilot program to permit non-traditional legal services, including non-lawyer firm ownership.  The report of the Utah Work Group on Regulatory Reform titled Narrowing the Access-To-Justice Gap by Reimagining Regulation is here:  https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FINAL-Task-Force-Report.pdf

In an opinion dated August 29, 2019 (which is not yet published), the Utah Supreme Court voted unanimously to approve the recommendations of the work group which called for “profoundly reimagining the way legal services are regulated in order to harness the power of entrepreneurship, capital, and machine learning in the legal arena.”

The work group proposed the creation of a new structure in Utah for the regulation of legal services that would provide for broad-based investment and participation in business entities that provide legal services, including non-lawyer investment in and ownership of these entities.  The report stated that this goal should be achieved in two ways:

  1. Substantially loosening regulatory restrictions on the corporate practice of law, lawyer advertising, solicitation, and fee arrangements, including referrals and fee sharing and;
  1. Simultaneously establishing a new regulatory body, under the supervision of the Supreme Court, to advance and implement a risk-based, empirically-grounded regulatory process for legal service entities.

The Utah Supreme Court’s approval of the recommendations begins the first stage the report’s recommendations, which includes the creation of an implementation task force that will establish the new regulatory body as a pilot program that will be in place for about two years. The regulatory body will work with the Utah State Bar, which will continue to maintain its authority over lawyers and licensed paralegal practitioners (LPPs) and regulate non-traditional legal services which is not currently allowed under Utah’s rules.

Stage one of the plan also includes the creation of a “regulatory sandbox” which will be managed by the new regulating body, and will allow a limited market of non-traditional legal entities to provide legal services in the state. According to the report, “The goal is to allow the Court and aspiring innovators to develop new offerings that could benefit the public, validate them with the public, and understand how current regulations might need to be selectively or permanently relaxed to permit these and other innovations.”

The report also requested the Supreme Court to order three changes that would allow the pilot to operate as part of the first stage, including:

  1. Creation of the regulating body as an implementation task force of the court and delegate regulatory authority to set up and run the regulatory sandbox;
  2. Establish that providers approved to participate in the regulatory sandbox are not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Utah; and
  3. Establish that lawyers will not be subject to discipline for entering into business with or otherwise providing services with providers in the sandbox.

The court has not issued a written order and a Utah Supreme Court Justice who was on the Task Force stated that he expects the court to issue a press release soon providing further details.

As I previously blogged, the Utah Supreme Court previously approved Limited License Practitioner Rules which became effective November 1, 2018 and the first LLPs in Utah were expected to be licensed in 2019.  This makes Utah the most recent state to license non-lawyers to practice law and will allow LLPs practice without a lawyer’s supervision in three areas, including matters involving temporary separation, divorce, parentage, cohabitant abuse, civil stalking, custody and support, and name change, matters involving forcible entry and detainer, and debt collection matters in which the dollar amount in issue does not exceed the statutory limit for small claims cases.  LLPs will not be permitted to appear in court on behalf of a client.

Bottom line:  This is a very significant step toward the acceptance of non-traditional and non-lawyer practice in Utah and in the United States.  All of the states which have approved such rules are in western states, so far.  The beat goes on…stay tuned.

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

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 2018 Utah rules permitting non-lawyer legal practice, 2019 Utah pilot program permitting non-traditional legal services, including non-lawyer firm ownership, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer sharing fees with non-lawyers, Non-lawyer ownership, Non-lawyer ownership of law firms, Non-lawyer practice of law, Non-lawyer practicing law, 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

New York lawyer suspended for lying to law firm about brief filings and drafting fake brief and e-mails to support false statements

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent suspension of a New York law firm associate lawyer who lied about filing briefs and drafted a fake brief and created false e-mails to support his false statements.  The disciplinary opinion is: Matter of McCoobery, 2019 NY Slip Op 00843, Appellate Division, First Department (2/5/18).  The link to the opinion is here:  http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_00843.htm

According to the opinion, in one matter, a firm partner asked the lawyer to draft an appellate opposition brief.  The lawyer wrote and filed the brief without providing it to the partner for review and, when the partner asked to see a draft, the lawyer provided the filed brief to the partner and falsely stated that it was a draft. The partner made revisions to the brief and later discovered that the brief had already been filed.

In the other matter, the partner told the lawyer to send an appellate brief and the record on appeal to the law firm’s printing vendor and to instruct the vendor to serve and file the documents. The lawyer sent the brief and documents to the vendor, but failed to ask for service and filing.

The lawyer also falsely told the partner that he had given the instructions to the vendor and, to cover up the false statements, the lawyer falsely told the partner that he and the opposing counsel had stipulated to an extension for filing the brief.  The lawyer also fabricated an opposition brief and provided it to the partner and falsified e-mails to make it appear that he had received the brief from opposing counsel. As a result, the partner drafted a reply brief.

The opinion further states that the lawyer:

“falsely told the partner that the client’s appeal was calendared for this Court’s June 2017 term. On May 1, 2017, when this Court released its June 2017 calendar, the client’s appeal was not on it.  After noticing the appeal had not been calendared, the partner told respondent he was going to call opposing counsel to find out why the appeal had not been calendared.  Respondent then admitted to the partner that he failed to inform the printing vendor to serve and file the subject documents and admitted his deceptions. On May 2, 2017, respondent tendered his resignation from the firm.”

The lawyer stipulated to the facts and consented to a 3 month suspension.  The opinion stated that the lawyer’s misconduct occurred while he was dealing with his father’s terminal illness and death, he had no previous discipline in more than 20 years of practicing law, and no clients suffered “irreparable” harm.

Bottom line:  In this case, an associate lawyer at a law firm filed a brief without a partner’s review and lied about it, failed to insure that another brief was filed and lied about that, and then drafted a fake brief and falsified e-mails to cover up his misconduct.   Although the opinion states that there was no “irreparable” harm to any clients, I do not know how the failure to file a brief would not result in “irreparable” client harm.

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, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline lying to law firm suspension, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Disbarred Georgia lawyer convicted of stealing client money and scheduled to enter prison allegedly killed his mother and fled

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent voluntary disbarment of a Georgia lawyer convicted of stealing thousands of dollars of client money and schedule to enter prison, who allegedly stabbed his mother to death and fled the area.  The disciplinary case is: In the Matter of Richard v. Merritt, 302 Ga. 874 (1/29/18).  The link to the disbarment Order is here:  https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/s18y0387.pdf

According to media reports, the Georgia lawyer was convicted of stealing thousands of dollars of client’s money and was sentenced to 15 years in prison and 15 years of probation after being convicted of stealing money from his clients and elder abuse. The lawyer was found guilty on more than 30 counts of theft, forgery and elder exploitation and given until the end of the day on February 1, 2019 to surrender and begin serving the sentence.

The lawyer had admitted to settling civil lawsuits on his clients’ behalf without their knowledge, forging signatures on settlement checks and documents, and keeping money intended for his clients.  As a condition of the sentencing, the lawyer was also ordered to pay $454,706.00 in restitution to clients.

The lawyer failed to surrender to enter prison on February 1, 2019 and, the day after the lawyer was required to surrender, his mother was found stabbed to death. Her car was also missing and the lawyer’s vehicle was found at the scene.  According to a statement by the U.S. Marshall’s Service: “The vehicle he may be driving is a 2009 silver Lexus RX350, bearing a Georgia tag CBV 6004.”  “He may have shaved his head or otherwise changed his appearance, and should be considered armed and dangerous. Do not try to engage him. If you see Merritt, please contact law enforcement immediately.”

According to the January 29, 2019 Georgia Supreme Court Order disbarring the lawyer after he filed a petition to voluntarily surrender his license, “(the lawyer) admits that in February 2017 he settled a client’s personal injury matter for $75,000, but failed to promptly disburse those funds to his client or her medical providers and failed to render a full accounting of the funds to his client. Merritt acknowledges that the above-described conduct violated Rule 1.15 (I) (c) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a single violation of Rule 1.15 (I) is disbarment.”

Bottom line:  This is quite a bizarre and unsettling case where a lawyer chose to steal thousands of dollars from his clients, was then convicted of the thefts and sentenced to 15 years in prison, and apparently killed his mother and has now fled at the time that he was scheduled to surrender and enter prison.

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 criminal conduct, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer disbarment theft of client funds, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer misappropriation, Lawyer resignation in lieu of discipline/disbarment, Lawyer sanctions

Louisiana lawyer is suspended after criminal battery conviction for chest bumping a prosecutor

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary opinion which suspended a lawyer after he was convicted of misdemeanor battery for chest bumping a criminal prosecutor.  The disciplinary case is: In Re: Felix DeJean, IV, NO. 2018-B-133 (1/30/18) and the link to the case is here:  http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2019/18-1333.B.OPN.pdf

According to the opinion, the incident occurred in March 2015 after a conference in a criminal case in the judge’s chambers. The criminal prosecutor alleged that the lawyer exchanged words with him, physically confronted him, and “chest bumped” him. The lawyer claimed that the prosecutor started the altercation and that he was acting in self-defense.

The incident led to a criminal charge of simple battery against the lawyer. The prosecutor testified at the trial, along with several other witnesses, including the judge, the judicial assistant, and the court reporter. The lawyer was found guilty in July 2016 and received a suspended jail sentence along with 18 months of supervised probation that required him to complete an anger management program.  Before the criminal trial, the lawyer had filed a civil suit for damages against the prosecutor related the incident and, according to the opinion, that lawsuit was still pending.

A Louisiana disciplinary hearing committee recommended a six-month suspension; however, after review, the Louisiana  disciplinary board had recommended the year-and-a-day suspension.  The Supreme Court opinion suspended the lawyer for a year and a day and the length of the suspension means that the lawyer will be required to apply for reinstatement and show his fitness to practice after the suspension is completed.

The opinion found that the lawyer violated Louisiana Bar Rules which prohibit the commission a criminal acts that reflect adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  The opinion also stated that the evidence supported the findings of a violation of the Louisiana Bar Rules and, although the lawyer’s conduct “caused no actual physical harm, it did impair the public reputation of the profession and the judicial system.”

The opinion further noted that this was the third time that the lawyer had been accused of violating the disciplinary rules due to overly aggressive or physically abusive behavior.  The lawyer’s prior disciplinary history is as follows: he consented to a two-year probation in 2006 for behavior caused by mental health issues and previous use of marijuana and alcohol, he was twice admonished by the disciplinary board in 2009 for failing to properly address fee disputes with clients, he agreed to a public reprimand in 2010 for relying on the “false representations of his client and (failing) to verify the identity of the parties who appeared before him” for a “notarial renunciation” and the lawyer received a public reprimand in 2013 for acting in an abusive and threatening manner during a settlement conference.

Bottom line:  This is another (somewhat strange) disciplinary case involving a lawyer who was disciplined for engaging in overly aggressive behavior, in this case, an unwanted chest bump and a criminal battery conviction.  Chest bumps may now be acceptable at sports events or on other occasions, but not as unwanted touching in a courthouse.  Things we learned in kindergarten…

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 criminal conduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline criminal conviction battery chest bump, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Illinois Bar Complaint alleges that former large firm lawyer inflated hours because of perceived billing expectations

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent (January 11, 2019) Illinois Bar Complaint which alleges that an Illinois lawyer inflated his billable hours because of perceived expectations from his law firm.  The case is: In the Matter of Christopher Craig Anderson. No. 6304580 and the disciplinary Complaint is here: https://www.iardc.org/19PR0003CM.html

According to the Complaint filed by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the lawyer had worked as an associate at Kirkland & Ellis before leaving to join Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, where he was promoted to nonequity partner. The lawyer started working for Kirkland & Ellis in 2011 and Neal Gerber in 2015 and both are large law firms.

According to the Complaint:

During his time at both firms, in an attempt to meet what he perceived to be the firms’ billing expectations, Respondent recorded time beyond what he had actually spent in handling client matters, knowing that the time he recorded would be billed to his clients and that they would be asked to pay fees based on the records he created. For the days that Respondent felt he had not recorded sufficient time on client matters, he increased the time he claimed to have spent on those matters based on a number of factors, including his assessment of the likelihood that the client would object to the time he recorded. As an example, if Respondent spent 0.3 hours on a client matter, he would record that he had actually spent 0.5 hours, or he would bill 2.1 hours for work that actually took him 1.7 hours to complete.

In August 2018, Respondent reported his conduct to one of the leaders of his practice group at Neal Gerber Eisenberg. The firm then conducted an inquiry into Respondent’s billing practices, at the conclusion of which it determined to offer a refund or credit to more than 100 clients who may have been affected by Respondent’s conduct. As a result, the firm offered to return funds that amounted to 20% of Respondent’s recorded time that was actually billed to and paid by the firm’s clients, which totaled more than $150,000. The Kirkland & Ellis firm, which also had not been aware of Respondent’s conduct at the time it was occurring, similarly determined to offer refunds or credits to clients affected by Respondent’s conduct.

A Kirkland & Ellis spokesperson provided a statement to the ABA Journal: “We recently learned that a former associate during the 2011-2015 timeframe may have rounded up his billable hours to certain clients.  We take these situations very seriously and are in the process of preparing refunds or credits for all potentially impacted time that was billed to any client.”

Bottom line:  This case is another unfortunate example of a lawyer inflating billable time to meet the expectations of his law firm(s), which are both considered to be large “BigLaw” firms; however, in this case, the lawyer self-reported his misconduct to his law firm and was terminated.

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 discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, lawyer excessive fee, Lawyer excessive fees, Lawyer improper fees, Lawyer inflating fees improper billing, Lawyer misrepresentations to law firm re billings