Tag Archives: lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

Florida Bar Board of Governors approves Bar rule revision prohibiting misleading law firm information in all advertisements

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

The BOG unanimously approved the proposed rule revisions amending Florida Bar Rule 4-7.13 to prohibit misleading digital advertisements.  As I previously reported, the BOG ethics committee previously voted down a proposal to add Bar Rule 4-7.13(c) which would have stated that “it is inherently misleading or deceptive for a lawyer to intentionally use, or arrange for the use of, the name of a lawyer not in the same firm or the name of another law firm as words or phrases that trigger the display of the lawyer’s advertising on the internet or other media, including directly or through a group advertising program.”

The revised Bar rule does not address purchasing a competitor’s name through Google AdWords but would prohibit all advertisements from stating or implying that a lawyer is affiliated with the advertising lawyer or law firm in a way that misleads a person searching either for a particular lawyer or law firm or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a different lawyer or law firm.

The proposed rule revision is below.

RULE 4-7.13 DECEPTIVE AND INHERENTLY MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS

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

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

The revised rule also includes a subsection (12) setting forth “Examples of Deceptive or Inherently Misleading Advertisements.”

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

The Florida Bar will now file a Petition including revised Rule 4-7.13 will now be filed with the Florida Supreme Court, which will review it and determine whether to implement the proposed rule.

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

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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 Bar Rules misleading internet advertisements and GoogleAdWords, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule using GoogleAds words to misdirect to another firm, Florida Bar Rule- lawyer misleading law firm information in all advertising, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer internet advertising rules, Lawyers and social media, Uncategorized

Louisiana Supreme Court disbars former Assistant U.S. Attorney for making anonymous improper internet comments

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary opinion which disbarred a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for making numerous anonymous improper and inflammatory comments on the internet related to pending criminal cases.  The disciplinary case is: Supreme Court of Louisiana v. In Re: Salvador R. Perricone, NO. 2018-B-1233 (12/5/18) and the link to the case is here:  https://www.ladb.org/DR/Default.aspx?DocID=9113&TAB=SC

According to the opinion, the underlying facts in the case were mostly undisputed.  The lawyer began employment as an Assistant United States Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1991. At all times relevant to these proceedings, the lawyer was a Senior Litigation Counsel and the USAO’s training officer.

During the time period of the allegations in the Complaint, The New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper maintained an Internet website called nola.com which permitted readers to post comments to news stories using pseudonyms and anonymous identities.

Beginning in November 2007 through March 14, 2012, the lawyer posted numerous comments on various subjects on nola.com, including statements about pending criminal cases to which he and other prosecutors were assigned. “Of the more than 2,600 comments respondent posted, between one hundred and two hundred – less than one percent – related to matters being prosecuted by (the U.S. Attorney’s Office). None of the comments identified respondent by name or as an employee of the USAO. Rather, respondent posted on nola.com using at least five online identities: ‘campstblue’, ‘legacyusa’, ‘dramatis personae’, “Henry L. Mencken1951’, and ‘fed up.’”

The anonymous comments included, inter alia, statements such as:

“Heebe’s (the defendant) goose is cooked.”

“I read the indictment…there is no legitimate reason for this type of behavior in such a short period of time and for a limited purpose. GUILTY!!!”

“Looks like Fazzio got a lemon. That book you refer to Mr. Rioux is about all of his losses. The guy is a clown and Fazzio is going down.”

The allegations were reported to the presiding judge who found the lawyer’s conduct improper and reversed the criminal convictions against the defendants and ordered a new trial.  The judge also found that the lawyer “viewed posting of highly-opinionated comments as a ‘public service.”  A disciplinary complaint was opened against the lawyer and, after disciplinary proceedings were completed, the Louisiana Disciplinary Board recommended that the lawyer be found guilty of the Bar Rule violations and disbarred.

The Louisiana Supreme Court opinion rejected post-traumatic stress as mitigation and stated that “the focus of the inquiry in the instant case is on the second factor – namely, whether respondent’s PTSD caused the misconduct at issue. Based on our review of the record, we find no clear and convincing support for the conclusion that respondent’s mental condition may have caused his misconduct.”  After reviewing aggravating and mitigating factors and case law, the opinion further stated:

“In this age of social media, it is important for all attorneys to bear in mind that “[t]he vigorous advocacy we demand of the legal profession is accepted because it takes place under the neutral, dispassionate control of the judicial system.” Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1058 (1991). As the Court in Gentile wisely explained, “[a] profession which takes just pride in these traditions may consider them disserved if lawyers use their skills and insight to make untested allegations in the press instead of in the courtroom.” Id. Respondent’s conscious decision to vent his anger by posting caustic, extrajudicial comments about pending cases strikes at the heart of the neutral dispassionate control which is the foundation of our system. Our decision today must send a strong message to respondent and to all the members of the bar that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are not diminished by the mask of anonymity provided by the Internet.

In summary, considering respondent’s position of public trust as a prosecutor, his knowing and intentional decision to post these comments despite his acknowledgment that it was improper to do so, and the serious harm respondent’s conduct has caused both to individual litigants and to the legal profession as a whole, we must conclude he has failed to comply with the high ethical standards we require of lawyers who are granted the privilege to practice law in this state. The only appropriate sanction under these facts is disbarment.”

Bottom line:  This is another disciplinary case involving a criminal prosecutor improperly using the internet, this time it is a federal prosecutor who made biased and inflammatory comments.  The Louisiana Supreme Court (and other courts) have made it very clear that it will not tolerate lawyers, especially those in a position of “public trust”, who anonymously (or otherwise) make biased, improper, and inflammatory comments on the internet.

Be careful out there.

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, defense of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms.  If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license. 

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me at jcorsmeier@jac-law.com.  You can find my law firm on the web at www.jac-law.com. In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida.  I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.

You are receiving this ETHICS ALERT since you are a current or former client or you have requested that this Update be sent to you.  Please note that you may opt in or out of receiving this ETHICS ALERT any time.  If you would like to discontinue receipt of this ETHICS ALERT or if you would like to begin receiving it, simply send me an e-mail to me advising of your request.

If there are others at your firm who would like to be included on the distribution list, please feel free to forward this update to them or let us know in an email.  If you would like to forward this Ethics Alert to any person or entity please feel free do so as long as it is not for personal gain and you forward the entire email, including all contact information and disclaimers. 

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 conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer inflammatory comments on internet about pending cases disbarment, Lawyer misconduct improper social media access, Lawyer sanctions, lawyer suspension social media misconduct, Lawyers and social media, Prosecutor disbarred for inflammatory anonymous comments on pending cases, Prosecutor misconduct discipline, Prosecutorial misconduct ethics

New Jersey lawyer censured for stating to nonpaying client that he would not prepare for trial and to “HAVE FUN IN PRISON”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent New Jersey Supreme Court Order imposing a a censure on a lawyer who told a client who was behind on payment of fees that he would not prepare for his criminal trial and to “have fun in prison”.  The case style is: In the Matter of Logan M. Terry, No. DRB 17-417 (November 1, 2018).  the Order and New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board’s Decision are here:  http://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1105750  and here: http://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1098836.

According to the Disciplinary Review Board’s decision, the attorney represented a client facing criminal charges of sexual assault on four minors and:

In the days immediately prior to a jury trial scheduled for June 7, 2016, respondent communicated with his client in an attempt to collect outstanding fees, informing AM that respondent could not “provide an adequate defense” unless AM ……… paid respondent’s legal fees. Furthermore, in a text message, respondent warned AM that he would not prepare for the trial during the weekend immediately preceding it, unless he was first paid. He then wrote, “HAVE FUN IN PRISON.” The maximum sentence that AM could have received exceeded 200 years.

The lawyer had previously asked the judge to allow him to withdraw twice and the judge refused to allow the withdrawal.  At the beginning of the June 7, 2016 trial (after the jury had been picked), the client told the trial judge about the lawyer’s communications, showed the judge copies of the communications, and stated that he wanted to terminate the lawyer’s legal services.  The lawyer was then removed and the trial was continued.

The New Jersey disciplinary agency opened an investigation on the lawyer and, in a letter to the agency, the lawyer admitted that his actions had been unethical and stated that the client had not cooperated in preparing a defense to the charges and had refused a plea offer that the lawyer considered to be favorable.

The Disciplinary Review Board found that the lawyer’s actions constituted a conflict of interest because he “placed his own personal interest in receiving a legal fee above his client’s interest in receiving the best possible defense to the charges against him.”  The Board also found that the lawyer’s text was prejudicial to the administration of justice because the judge was required to release the jury and reschedule the trial.

The decision found as an aggravating factor that the trial had been previously rescheduled because the lawyer had failed to pay the annual fee to the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.  According to the decision:  “(t)o be sure, (the lawyer) was in a difficult position, having been required to continue representing an uncooperative, nonpaying client in a criminal matter. Nevertheless, (the lawyer’s) reaction to that predicament was one of defiance—to subvert the court’s directive by ‘poisoning’ the representation on the eve of trial.”

The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the Board’s findings and imposed a censure and required the lawyer to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

Bottom line:  This lawyer clearly became frustrated with the client’s lack of cooperation and failure to pay his fee; however, the lawyer’s communications were obviously improper and he was fortunate to receive only a censure for his conduct.

Be careful out there, and don’t do this…

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer abusive e-mails, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer e-mail abuse of client, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions

Two Ohio lawyers receive stayed six-month suspensions for violating client confidences while engaged in a personal relationship

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Ohio Supreme Court Order imposing a six month stayed suspension on two lawyers who violated client confidences while engaged in a personal romantic relationship.  The case style is: The Disciplinary Counsel v. Holmes and Kerr, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4308 and the opinion is here:  https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2018/2018-Ohio-4308.pdf

According to the stipulated facts, the lawyers began a romantic relationship after meeting at a conference in November 2014. They represented different public school districts and were employed by different law firms.  Between January 2015 and November 2016, the lawyers exchanged more than a dozen e-mails in which they disclosed confidential client information.

According to the opinion, one of the lawyers (Kerr) generally forwarded e-mails from her clients asking for documents to the other lawyer (Holmes), who then provided the legal documents that he had prepared for clients with similar requests.  According to the opinion, “In about one-third of these email exchanges, Holmes had ultimately completed Kerr’s work for her.”

The opinion further states that Holmes was terminated from his law firm in June 2016 after the disclosure of confidential client information was discovered.  A partner in Holmes’ law firm then filed a Bar complaint against Holmes and notified Kerr’s firm about the confidential e-mail exchanges.  Notwithstanding the termination and notification, the lawyers continued to trade information. Kerr resigned from her law firm in November 2016.

Both lawyers stipulated to a violation of two Bar rules: improper disclosure of confidential information, and conduct which adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.  The opinion states: “We agree that Holmes and Kerr engaged in the stipulated misconduct and that based on our precedent, a stayed six-month suspension is appropriate. We therefore adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreements.”

Bottom line: This is a rare example of lawyers who were involved in a personal relationship being disciplined for violating attorney/client confidentiality.  The Ohio disciplinary agency was advised of the lawyers’ conduct by a partner in one of the lawyer’s firm, and both lawyers stipulated that they had violated Bar rules related to confidentiality and conduct adversely reflecting the lawyer’s fitness to practice.  Unless there is an exception or the client consents, confidential information cannot be provided to another person or otherwise disseminated.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, attorney/client privilege, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer discipline for revealing client confidences in romantic relationship, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer in romantic relationship revealing client confidential information, Lawyer sanctions

Florida lawyer suspended for 18 months for engaging in personal misconduct while acting pro se as a party in a dissolution proceeding

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss a Florida Supreme Court opinion wherein the Court imposed an 18 month suspension on a lawyer who engaged in misconduct while representing himself as a party in a dissolution and child support proceeding.  The case is The Florida Bar v. Madsen Marcellus, Jr., No. SC16-1773 and the July 19, 2018 Supreme Court opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc16-1773.pdf

According to the opinion, a 2010 Order in the dissolution matter required the lawyer to refinance the marital home, remove his ex-wife’s name from the property since he had moved out, or sell the home. Before the closing of a pending sale and the ex-wife had vacated, the lawyer moved back in and the sale fell through.

The lawyer was then unable to refinance the house and, in an attempt to obtain a modification of the mortgage, a friend of the lawyer who was a notary signed the ex-wife’s name on the application in front of the lawyer and notarized it without the ex-wife’s knowledge or consent.

The ex-wife became aware of false notarization after the lawyer failed to make payments under the modified mortgage and she was served as part of a foreclosure filing.  The ex-wife then filed a motion for contempt since her name had not been removed from the house title as ordered. The trial judge withheld a contempt finding, but did order the lawyer to pay $2,500.00 the ex-wife’s fees.

The lawyer was served with discovery requests in the dissolution matter in 2013 related to his alleged failure to pay child support.  He failed to respond and also failed to appear in court when he was ordered to do so by the judge.  The lawyer was later sanctioned and ordered to pay the ex-wife’s fees.  He also remained in violation of several family court orders throughout the disciplinary matter.

The referee rejected the lawyer’s claim he missed some court appearances because he was representing clients, and noted that he made no attempt to advise the court of any conflicts. The referee also found the lawyer was deceptive in the disciplinary process.

The opinion upheld the referee’s factual findings and the findings that the lawyer violated various Bar rules in his actions related to his dissolution and child support matters but increased the referee’s recommended discipline from a 12-month suspension to an 18-month suspension.

The opinion referred to various previous Bar cases where lawyers had committed less serious Bar rule violations and received one-year suspensions.  The opinion also stated, as it has in previous Bar discipline opinions, that “the Court has ‘moved toward imposing stronger sanctions for unethical and unprofessional conduct.’ Fla. Bar v. Rosenberg, 169 So. 3d 1155, 1162 (Fla. 2015).”

In addition, “(the lawyer’s) conduct was entirely unbecoming of a lawyer, who is held within a position of trust and respect in our society, and cannot be tolerated,” the court said in its opinion. “Although [the attorney] committed this misconduct as a party to his own divorce, lawyers ‘do not cast aside the oath they take as an attorney or their professional responsibilities’ just because they are litigants in personal matters. Fla. Bar v. Cibula, 725 So. 2d 360, 365 (Fla. 1998).”

Bottom line:  This case involves a lawyer who engaged in personal ethical misconduct as a party to a personal dissolution matter.  The Supreme Court opinion points out that the Court has “moved toward imposing stronger sanctions for unethical and unprofessional conduct” and lawyers “do not cast aside the oath they take as an attorney….just because they are litigants in personal matters.”  Lawyers must comply with the Florida Bar rules, even while acting as a party in a personal civil matter.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida lawyer- misconduct in own divorce, Florida Supreme Court, 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 personal misconduct in divorce - suspension, Lawyer sanctions

Connecticut lawyer who was sued for malpractice and included client’s psychiatric records in court document suspended for 2 years

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent 2 year suspension of a Connecticut lawyer who was sued for legal malpractice and released his former client’s psychiatric records in retaliation and to embarrass the client.  The case is Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Jason E. Pearl, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, Order 418034, Docket No.: HHBCV186043301S.

The lawyer’s former client, Veronica Perakos, sued him for professional malpractice in December 2014.  According to the complaint, the client hired the lawyer in 2011 to defend her in a lawsuit her condominium association filed regarding alleged failure to pay common fees and monthly special assessment fees.  Her debt to the association was $22,358.00 and the lawyer was alleged to have failed to notify her about the risk of foreclosure if she did not make the monthly payments on the debt.

The lawsuit also claimed the lawyer did not explain to the client what happened after a court hearing, failed to give the client file to the client’s new lawyer in a timely manner, and told the new lawyer that the client’s foreclosure matter would be resolved if she placed the property on the market for a price set by the court.  The lawyer had previously been suspended for 120 days in 2013 for not complying with a random IOLTA audit and the lawsuit claimed that he also failed to notify the client of that audit.

According to court documents, approximately six weeks after the lawsuit was filed, the lawyer filed an electronically filed motion with the court asking that the client be declared “unfit to testify due to her psychiatric history, medical commitment, conservatorship and untruthfulness.” The client’s psychiatric records were also enclosed with the motion without the client’s permission.  According to media reports, the lawyer had represented the client on previous matters, which was how he obtained her medical records dating back to 2006.

The malpractice litigation resulted in a judgment for the client and, after reviewing the information and evidence regarding the publication of the client’s confidential psychiatric records, Superior Court Judge Joan Alexander found as follows:

The Court finds clear and convincing evidence that Jason E. Pearl violated Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. He engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice by his unauthorized public release of a former client’s psychiatric records. The Court finds that the respondent violated Rule 1.9 of the Professional Rules of Conduct in that his conduct was retaliatory and intended to embarrass his former client. As a result of these findings, the Court orders a 2 year suspension on his right to practice law effective immediately. The court orders that the respondent must successfully complete 20 hours of legal ethics training and file notice evidencing the completion of this training. The training must be attended in person and not online. The respondent also must comply with the requirements of Practice Book § 2-47B during his suspension. If the respondent seeks reinstatement to the bar after the period of suspension, he must comply with the procedures outlined in Practice Book § 2-53.

Bottom line:  This case involves a lawyer who was apparently upset that his client had filed a malpractice claim against him and he decided to make an “unauthorized public release of a former client’s psychiatric records”, which “ was retaliatory and intended to embarrass his former client.”

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, dishonesty, Former client confidentiality, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline e-filing confidentiality breach, Lawyer enclosing client's confidential psychiatric records in malpractice lawsuit, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer violating confidentiality by placing client medical records into public record

Nevada lawyer suspended for 6 months and 1 day for displaying a gun at a deposition and other “appalling behavior”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent 6 month and 1 day suspension of a Nevada lawyer for brandishing a gun at a deposition, using derogatory language and repeatedly making inappropriate statements, and other “appalling behavior”.  The case is In re: Discipline of James Pengilly, SC Case No. 74316.  The September 7, 2018 unpublished Nevada Supreme Court Order is here:  file:///C:/Users/jcorsmeier/Downloads/18-35030%20(1).pdf

The lawyer was representing himself as the defendant in a defamation lawsuit and the misconduct is related to the lawyer’s behavior during a deposition of the Plaintiff at his office in September 2016.  The lawyer used vulgarities while questioning the witness, called the deponent derogatory names (including “Dip Shit” and “Big Bird”), aggressively interrupted the witness and opposing counsel, answered questions for the witness, and repeatedly made inappropriate statements on the record.

At one point during the deposition, the lawyer put his hand near his hip and asked the witness if he was “ready for it”. The witness then briefly left the room and when he returned, the lawyer displayed a firearm he had in a holster on his hip to the witness and the opposing counsel.  The deposition was then terminated and the defamation litigation was put on hold.  The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions outlining the misconduct.  The Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions and exhibits are here: 9-29-16 Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions.  The lawyer was sanctioned for his misconduct in the litigation.

The unpublished Nevada Supreme Court Order states: “(h)aving reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the panel’s findings that Pengilly violated RPC 8.4(d) (prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). Indeed, the deposition transcript, coupled with the testimony at the formal hearing, demonstrates that Pengilly displayed appalling behavior toward the deponent. Additionally, the record is clear, and Pengilly admits, that he displayed a firearm. Accordingly, we agree with the hearing panel that Pengilly committed the violation set forth above.”

“Pengilly argues that his conduct should be viewed under a negligence standard, but we agree with the panel that he acted knowingly as he was consciously aware of his conduct and knew his behavior was inappropriate. His conduct caused actual injury to the proceeding as the deposition concluded early and the discovery commissioner had to issue a protective order, causing the case to be delayed. Both the deponent and his attorney testified they were afraid Pengilly was going to shoot them, and their fears were documented: they immediately called the police, filed police reports the next day, filed for a TPO, and filed bar grievances. Further, there was the potential for serious injury to every one present—the deponent, his attorney, the court reporter, Pengilly’s office staff, and even Pengilly himself–because a deadly weapon was involved.”

Bottom line:  This case involves a lawyer who was clearly lacking in emotional control and anger management, to say the least.  In addition, he was representing himself, and we know how that can go.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer disparaging comments at deposition, Lawyer disruptive conduct, Lawyer disruptive litigation conduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misconduct at deposition brandishing weapon 6 month suspension, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer threats and discipline, misconduct in deposition- discipline, Nevada lawyer suspended for brandishing gun in depositions