Tag Archives: joseph corsmeier

California Supreme Court adopts new Bar ethics rules which (mostly) follow the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the California Supreme Court’s recent Order implementing new Bar ethics rules which are substantially patterned after the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  The California Supreme Court Order approving 69 new rules (42 of which were modified by the Court) along with the Court’s comments is here: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/Supreme%20Court%20Order%202018-05-09.pdf.

On May 10, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an order adopting a new set of California Rules of Professional Conduct patterned after the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which were first published by the ABA in 1983.  California will now join the other 49 states which have adopted ethics rules patterned after the ABA Model Rules.  California lawyers are also governed by the California Business Code. The new California Bar rules will take effect on November 1, 2018.

The new California Bar rules are not identical to the ABA Model Rules; however, and the new rules do not adopt Model Rule 1.14, which sets forth the obligations of lawyers who are representing clients with diminished capacity.  The new Bar rules implement streamlined advertising rules which substantially track the rules proposed by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL).

A table comparing the new California Bar rules with the ABA model rules which was prepared by the California Bar is here: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/2D_RRC/2017_CrossReferenceChart%20RulesByNumbering-v.2-031717.pdf

According to media reports, there is also back story related to the substantial efforts to align the California Bar rules with the ABA model rules (as well as the rest of the country).  An article published by the ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct in April 2017 outlines the history of “California’s multiyear initiative to update its standards governing lawyer conduct” to align with the ABA Model Rules templates.  That article is here:  https://www.bna.com/fate-california-rule-n57982086261/

Bottom line:  After a long effort by California lawyers, the state has now joined the 49 other states (including Florida in 1990), which have adopted versions of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility.

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 ABA Model Rules, Attorney Ethics, California adopts Model ABA Bar Rules, California Bar Rules 2018, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Professionalism

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors considers rule revisions prohibiting misleading Google ad words and permitting credit charges to clients

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the Board of Governor’s review of potential revisions to Florida Bar Rules 4-7.13, which would prohibit misleading words and phrases in Google ad words, and revisions to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(h), which would permit lawyers to charge a client the actual cost of accepting a credit payment.

The Bar Board of Governor’s backup materials regarding proposed revised Bar Rule 4-1.5(h) indicate that the basis for the proposed rule change is a potential allegation of an improper restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Bar’s recent summaries of the proposed rule revisions and their status in the BOG review process are below.

PROPOSED ADVERTISING RULE CHANGES 

The Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics will be considering a request for a rule amendment (to Rule 4-7.13) that would state 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. For example, the proposal would ban the purchase of another lawyer’s name in Google ad words. The Board’s Citizens Advisory Committee also supports the amendment, stating that the practice is misleading, particularly to vulnerable consumers. 

FINAL ACTION ON CREDIT SERVICE CHARGES 

The Board will be taking final action on a proposed rule change that would delete the current prohibition against charging a service charge for client’s use of a credit plan and allow lawyers to charge the actual charge imposed on the lawyer by the credit plan. Rule 4-1.5(h) currently permits lawyers to accept credit cards to pay for fees and costs, but prohibits lawyers from charging the client the credit card fee charged to the lawyer as a vendor.

Bottom line:  Proposed revised Rule 4-7.13, which would prohibit misleading Google ad words, would be consistent with other jurisdictions that have considered the issue.  Proposed revised Rule 4-1.5(h), which would permit a lawyer to require the client to pay the actual credit card charges would reverse the prior rule, which specifically prohibited requiring the client to pay such merchant charges.

Stay tuned 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

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Bar antitrust, Bar regulation and antitrust, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule permitting lawyers to charge credit card fees to clients, Florida Bar rule using GoogleAds words to misdirect to another firm, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer antitrust, Lawyer charging credit card fees to client, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer using GoogleAd words to misdirect users

Florida Supreme Court suspends two lawyers for conflict of interest Bar Rule violations under “hot potato doctrine”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida suspending two Florida lawyers for 30 days for violating Bar Rules related to conflicts of interest under what is being called the “hot potato” doctrine. The cases are: The Florida Bar v. Steven Kent Hunter, Case No.: SC16-1006, TFB No. 2014-70,728(11C) and The Florida Bar v. Philip Maurice Gerson, Case No.: SC16-1009, TFB No. 2014-70,729(11C).  The April 11, 2018 Supreme Court opinion is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2016/1006/2016-1006_disposition_141625_d31a.pdf

The Florida Supreme Court opinion suspended the two lawyers for 30 days each for seeking payments for their clients from a scientific institute created in a class action tobacco settlement notwithstanding objections from their previous clients.  The opinion found that the lawyers violated Florida Bar Rules 4-1.7 (conflict of interest – current clients), and 4-1.9 (conflict of interest – former clients) by seeking relief adverse to the clients’ interests.  The case involved the so called “hot potato doctrine”, which was established in a March 27, 2014 Florida Supreme Court opinion involving the same lawyers.

The 2014 Supreme Court opinion quashed a Third District Court of Appeals opinion reversing a trial court order disqualifying the lawyers on the same underlying facts as the 2018 Bar case.  That opinion stated:  “Additionally, with this opinion, we ask The Florida Bar to investigate whether any Florida Rules of Professional Conduct were violated during the underlying proceedings or during the presentation of this case to this Court.  The case is Patricia Young et al. vs. Norva Achenbauch, et al., Case No. SC12-988, and the March 27, 2014 opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc12-988.pdf

In Young, the Court said that a lawyer who has a conflict of interest between two current clients cannot avoid the current-client conflict rule (4-1.7) by dropping one client “like a hot potato.”  Before that opinion, it was argued that a client who a lawyer dropped because of a conflict of interest became a former client under Bar Rule 4-1.9, which is potentially less restrictive.

The underlying litigation began with a putative class-action lawsuit filed by a different lawyer on behalf of a number of flight attendants alleging damages for second hand smoke inhalation. That case settled with no compensation to class members; however, the settlement provided that $300 million would be paid to create a foundation sponsoring scientific research on cigarette smoking.  The settlement also allowed individual suits for compensatory damages by class members, as long as those claims were not based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation.  The lawyers were among the lawyers who took on individual suits by flight attendants.

The referee found in his report that the lawyers (and the other lawyers) were “wholly unsuccessful” in the individual cases, partly because class members could not prove causation.  The referee also found that, after the unsuccessful lawsuit, the lawyers then turned to “Plan B”, which was to negotiate payments to class members from the foundation. Two of Gerson’s former clients sent letters to the foundation stating they objected to any plan to undercut the foundation’s activities and funding.  Hunter, the other lawyer, received an objection from a foundation board member who he had previously represented in one of individual lawsuits, and who was being paid $60,000 annually to serve on the foundation board.

According to the referee’s report, Gerson believed the letters were solicited to stop the petition to approve a distribution from the foundation. Gerson and Hunter then withdrew from representing anyone who had voiced an objection, and filed a petition alleging that the institute had substantially deviated from its approved purpose and had misused settlement funds.

The institute and the objectors then filed a petition to disqualify the lawyers because of a conflict of interest and the disqualification issue was addressed in the Florida Supreme Court’s 2014 opinion, which created the so called “hot potato” doctrine.  The referee found that the 2014 opinion was binding in the ethics case; however, the referee recommended only an admonishment, finding that neither lawyer had any prior disciplinary record, the case involved legal issues that were unsettled before the 2014 Supreme Court decision, and the issue of whether the petition sought relief adverse to class members was “fairly debatable.”

The Florida Supreme Court opinion approved the referee’s findings of fact and the recommendation that the lawyers be found guilty of violating Florida Bar Rule 4-1.7; however, the opinion rejected the recommendation that the lawyers be found not guilty of violating Bar Rule 4-1.9, and found both lawyers guilty of violating that rule. The opinion also disapproved the referee’s recommendation of an admonishment and suspended both lawyers for 30 days.

Bottom line:  This is an unusual case where the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in an underlying case and sent the case to The Florida Bar for investigation.  The opinion relied on the court’s previous finding in the civil case and suspended the lawyers, even though the referee found the conflict to be “fairly debatable”.

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, Conflict of Interest "hot potato" doctrine, Disqualification, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, Grounds for lawyer withdrawal, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conflict of interest, Lawyer conflict of interest former clients, Lawyer conflict of interest- current clients, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer disqualification, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Federal magistrate sanctions New York lawyer for lying about family emergency after Instagram posts showed she was on vacation

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss recent opinion of a U.S. District Court magistrate sanctioning a New York lawyer who claimed that she missed a deadline because of a family emergency but was apparently on vacation.  The case is: Siu Ching Ha v. Baumgart Café of Livingston, Civil Action No. 15-5530 (ES) (MAH), and the magistrate’s opinion is here:  Ha v. Baumgart Café of Livingston Instagram sanctions

The lawyer, Lina Franco, and her co-counsel, John Troy, filed for an extension of time to file 16 days past the deadline to file a motion for conditional class certification.  The lawyer said she had to leave the country for the family emergency and submitted a flight itinerary showing she had flown from New York City to Mexico City on Thursday, November 21, 2016 and stayed there until December 8, 2016.

Opposing counsel filed a motion objecting to the extension and for sanctions claiming that Instagram photos from Franco’s public social media account indicated that she was in New York and then Miami during that period.  Franco told the magistrate that she had gone to Mexico City earlier in November and that her mother’s medical diagnosis sent her “into a tailspin” that caused her to miss the deadline and submit an erroneous itinerary.

The magistrate found that “November 21, 2016 was indisputably a Monday, not a Thursday” and, although Franco was in Mexico City in early November 2016, she was apparently in New York City when she missed the Nov. 23, 2016 deadline to file a motion for class certification in a wage-and-hour suit.  The magistrate found that Franco deliberately had misled the court and her co-counsel and that her “misrepresentations to the court clearly constitute bad faith and were unreasonable and vexatious, not simply a misunderstanding or well-intentioned zeal.”   The magistrate granted the motion and imposed sanctions against Franco in the amount of $10,000.00.

Franco was local counsel in the lawsuit and her co-counsel, Troy, was admitted into the case pro hac vice. Troy told the magistrate that he had e-mailed the motion to Franco on the afternoon of the deadline and had expected her to file it and he was unaware of her alleged family emergency. He said he did not follow up with Franco to make sure the motion was filed because he had worked with her in the past and believed that she was reliable.

Both Franco and opposing counsel sought to have Troy held jointly and severally responsible for the sanction; however, the magistrate did not agree, stating that “(e)ven assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that Mr. Troy had a duty to supervise Ms. Franco and was somehow derelict in discharging that duty, such dereliction falls well short of the standard to impose sanctions”.  Opposing counsel requested $44,283.00 in attorney fees and costs; however, the magistrate found that amount to be “unreasonably high” and ordered sanctions in the amount of $10,000.00 to be divided among the three opposing counsel.

Bottom line:  This is a very clear example of a lawyer whose false statements in court documents and in a court proceeding were exposed because of social media posts, in this case Instagram.

Be careful out there in our digital social media world…oh and don’t lie and post pictures on social media exposing the lie.

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, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions false statements and Instagram photos, Lawyer sanctions for lying and posting on social media, Lawyer sanctions lying in court document

ABA Formal Opinion 481 states that lawyers have an obligation to inform current clients of material errors

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss ABA Formal Opinion 481, which addresses a lawyer’s obligation to promptly inform a current client if the lawyer believes that he or she has made a material error.  ABA Formal 481 Opinion is here: http://www.abajournal.com/files/Formal_Opinion_481_FINAL_formatted_04_16_2018(2).pdf

The formal opinion states ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.4 governs a lawyer’s duty of communication and requires lawyers to promptly inform clients of any decision or circumstance for which a client’s informed consent is needed and also requires a lawyer to “reasonably consult” with the client about the means of achieving the client’s goals during representation and keep the client “reasonably informed” about the progress of the case.

The formal opinion further states that an error is material if “a disinterested lawyer would conclude that it is (a) reasonably likely to harm or prejudice a client; or (b) of such a nature that it would reasonably cause a client to consider terminating the representation even in the absence of harm or prejudice” and if there has been such a material error, the attorney must inform the client promptly. Whether an attorney can correct the error before telling the client depends on the individual facts.

According to the opinion, there is no duty to inform former clients since “(n)owhere does Model Rule 1.4 impose on lawyers a duty to communicate with former clients (and)  (h)ad the drafters of the Model Rule intended Rule 1.4 to apply to former clients, they presumably would have referred to former clients in the language of the rule or in the comments to the rule.”

The formal opinion concludes:

“The Model Rules require a lawyer to inform a current client if the lawyer believes that he or she may have materially erred in the client’s representation. Recognizing that errors occur along a continuum, an error is material if a disinterested lawyer would conclude that it is (a) reasonably likely to harm or prejudice a client; or (b) of such a nature that it would reasonably cause a client to consider terminating the representation even in the absence of harm or prejudice. The lawyer must so inform the client promptly under the circumstances. Whether notification is prompt is a case and fact specific inquiry.

No similar duty of disclosure exists under the Model Rules where the lawyer discovers after the termination of the attorney-client relationship that the lawyer made a material error in the former client’s representation.”

Bottom line:  This ABA opinion may be the first to address a lawyer’s affirmative obligation to tell a current client when he or she has made a material error, which the opinion states is one which is “(a) reasonably likely to harm or prejudice a client; or (b) of such a nature that it would reasonably cause a client to consider terminating the representation even in the absence of harm or prejudice.”

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert blog 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 ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 481- advising clients of material errors, ABA formal opinions, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer required to advise client of material errors

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors will consider ethics opinion addressing fee arrangements of qualifying providers and participating lawyers

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Florida Bar Board of Governor’s (BOG) direction to its ethics committee to prepare a draft advisory opinion addressing fee arrangements between qualifying providers and participating lawyers which comply with amended Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22, which substantially revises the requirements for qualifying providers.  The amended rule becomes effective on April 30, 2018.  The Supreme Court opinion implementing the amended rule (and others) is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc16-1470.pdf

The BOG directed its Review Committee on Professional Ethics to consider a proposed advisory opinion after receiving an inquiry by a Florida Bar member.  The BOG committee will consider the opinion at a meeting scheduled for May 18, 2018, from 1-3 p.m. at the Westin hotel in Key West and the draft opinion will be Proposed Advisory Opinion 17-2.

There is currently no draft opinion; however, the proposed advisory opinion will address different types of fee arrangements between for-profit qualifying providers and lawyer referral services who are otherwise in compliance with Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and participating lawyers. The Florida Bar rules prohibit lawyers from sharing fees with private for-profit qualifying providers.

The draft advisory opinion may address various fee arrangements, including:

  1. set fees paid to the qualifying provider on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis;
  2. set fees paid to the qualifying provider for each case referred to the participating lawyer;
  3. set fees paid to the qualifying provider for each case referred to a participating lawyer depending upon the type of matter (e.g., personal injury, family law);
  4. set fees paid to the qualifying provider for each case accepted by the participating lawyer;
  5. set fees paid to the qualifying provider for each case accepted by the participating lawyer depending on the type of matter (e.g., personal injury, family law);
  6. fees paid to the qualifying provider based upon the perceived value of the case referred to the participating lawyer;
  7. set fees paid to the qualifying provider depending upon the perceived value of a type of matter referred to participating lawyers; and
  8. fees paid to the qualifying provider which are a percentage of the recovery or percentage of the fee charged by the participating lawyer.

Pursuant to Florida Bar Procedures, Florida Bar members may comment on the proposed opinion.  Any comments must contain Proposed Advisory Opinion number 17-2, must clearly state the issues for the committee to consider, may offer suggestions for additional fee arrangements to be addressed by the proposed advisory opinion, and may include a proposed conclusion. 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 30 days from the notice in the April 15, 2018 issue of The Florida Bar News.

Bottom line:  The amended rule substantially change the current rules related to lawyer referrals and the Board of Governors has now initiated the process of identifying various fee arrangements between lawyers and qualifying providers which may or may not comply with the new rules.  Any lawyers who participate in (or are considering participating in) referrals from a private entity should carefully review the new rules, since lawyers can be prosecuted if the referral service (qualifying provider) fails to comply with the amended Bar rule(s).

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 ethics opinion qualifying provider- lawyer fees, Florida Bar matching services, Florida ethics opinion 17-2- lawyer referrals by private referral matching services, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer independent professional judgment- AVVO and matching services, Lawyer matching services Avvo, Lawyer referral fees, Lawyer Referral Services, Lawyer responsibilities AVVO and Linkedin

Florida Bar files Petition with Florida Supreme Court against TIKD alleging UPL; TIKD files Answer and Summary Judgment Motion

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Petition filed by The Florida Bar on January 23, 2018 alleging that the services provided by the TIKD app constitute the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), TIKD’s April 4, 2018 Answer, and TIKD’s April 9, 2018 Motion for Summary Judgment.  The case is The Florida Bar v. TIKD Services LLC and Christopher Riley, Case No. SC18-149 (Supreme Court of Florida).  The Florida Bar’s Petition is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/149/2018-149_petition_69080_petition2dupl.pdf, TIKD and Riley’s Answer and Response to Order to Show Cause is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/149/2018-149_response_50492_answer.pdf and the Motion for Summary Judgment is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/149/2018-149_motion_116248_motion2dother20substantive.pdf

As I have previously blogged, the TIKD internet application permits a ticketed person to upload a photo of the ticket and pay a fixed amount.  TIKD then retains an attorney to represent that person and, if he or she is ultimately is assessed with points against his or her license, TIKD refunds the payment and also pays the cost of the ticket.  The TIKD business model is based on the fact that contested traffic tickets are often dismissed or a lower fine is assessed and, since TIKD deals in volume, it can charge a lower price than a lawyer who is separately retained by an individual.

TIKD subsequently filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court, Southern District of Florida, alleging conspiracy, restraint of trade, tortious interference with business relationships, and antitrust violations.  That case is ongoing.

The Florida Bar issued a staff opinion finding that lawyers who work with TIKD and similar programs could be (or were) in violation of various Florida Bar ethics rules, including fee splitting and interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.  TIKD stated that its services fully comply with Florida Bar ethics rules and that lawyers who represent the individuals receive a flat fee and are independent practitioners “over whom TIKD does not exercise any direction or control.”

On January 23, 2018, The Florida Bar filed a Petition Against the Unlicensed Practice of Law against TIKD and its founder, Christopher Riley.  The Petition alleges, inter alia, that TIKD and Riley “advertise in a fashion which may lead a reasonable lay person to believe Respondents are qualified to offer legal services to the public”, “either personally or through advertisement offer traffic ticket defense legal services for a fixed price along with an offer to pay all fines and court costs with a money-back guarantee” and, “either personally or through advertisement offer traffic ticket defense legal services while suggesting that their services are the equivalent of or a substitute for the services of an attorney.”

The Petition requested the Court to find that the alleged conduct constitutes the Unlicensed Practice of Law and issue a permanent injunction “preventing and restraining Respondents from engaging in the acts complained of and from otherwise engaging in the practice of law in the State of Florida, until such time as Respondent Riley is duly licensed to practice law in this state.”  TIKD has now filed an Answer and Response to the Order to Show Cause as well as a Motion for Summary Judgment stating that it is not engaging in the practice of law and is merely providing a valuable service to its customers.

Bottom line:  This TIKD UPL matter is now being litigated before both the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Florida.  The internet application business model implicates the traditional and longstanding prohibitions against UPL and lawyers splitting fees with non-lawyers.

I will keep everyone 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.

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, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer improper sharing of fees - Avvo and matching services, lawyer improper solicitation through agents, Lawyer improper solicitation through non-lawyers, Lawyer independent professional judgment- AVVO and matching services, TIKD -Florida Bar UPL petition w Florida Supreme Court, TIKD UPL