Tag Archives: Lawyer ethics opinions

Florida Bar Board of Governors approves Ethics Opinion addressing lawyer fee arrangements with qualifying providers

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Florida Bar Board of Governor’s (BOG) unanimous approval of Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-1 addressing fee arrangements between qualifying providers and participating lawyers to comply with amended Florida Bar Rule 4-7.22, which substantially revises the requirements for qualifying providers.  Ethics Opinion 18-1 is here: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2018/10/Proposed-Advisory-Op-18-1-website-10-12-18.pdf

At its December 14, 2018 meeting in Naples, the BOG approved Advisory Ethics Opinion 18-1, “Payments to Qualifying Providers/Lawyer Referral Services.” regarding for-profit qualifying providers, previously known as lawyer referral services, and related payment methods.  The BOG approved the Ethics Opinion unanimously without debate.

Under amended Bar Rule 4-7.22, which became effective in April 2018, a qualifying provider is, “any person, group, or persons, associations, organizations, or entities that receive any benefit or consideration, monetary or otherwise, for the direct or indirect referral of respective clients to the lawyers or law firm.”

The Comment to Rule 4-7.22 states:

“A lawyer may not participate with a qualifying provider that receives any legal fee that constitutes a division of legal fees with a non-lawyer unless the qualifying provider is The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service or a lawyer referral service approved by The Florida Bar pursuant to Chapter 8 of these rules,” the comment states. “A fee calculated as a percentage of the fee received by a lawyer, or based on the success or perceived value of the case, would be an improper division of legal fees…(a)dditionally, a fee that constitutes an improper division of fees occurs when the qualifying provider directs, regulates, or influences the lawyer’s professional judgement in rendering legal services to the client.”

Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-1 lists the following factors which “mitigate in favor of a conclusion that the charge is permissible”:

  1. The charge is reasonably based on the qualifying provider’s costs for marketing and administration plus a reasonable profit; and
  2. the charge is imposed regardless of whether the lawyer is hired by the prospective client.

The opinion lists the following factors which would “mitigate in favor of a conclusion that the charge is impermissible”:

  1. The charge is based on the perceived value of the individual matter.
  2. The qualifying provider collects the lawyers’ fees directly from the consumer, takes a portion of the fee as the charge for the referral or match, then remits the remainder to the lawyer.
  3. The qualifying provider interferes with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in representing clients or directs the lawyer’s activities in representing clients.
  4. There is sufficient incentive for the qualifying provider to improperly solicit prospective clients or improperly market the service.

The opinion states that: “the board believes the following would be permissible:”

  1. A reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge per time period such as weekly, monthly, or yearly;
  2. A reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge for each time a consumer views information about a specific lawyer, commonly referred to as “pay-per-click.”
  3. A reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge per matter referred to the lawyer that is not contingent on the outcome of the matter and does not vary based on the amount at issue in the matter.
  4. A reasonable, pre-arranged fixed charge per matter referred to the lawyer that varies based on the type of matter only if the varying charge is based on demonstrably different marketing and administrative costs rather than the perceived value of the case.

The opinion states that: “the board believes the following would generally be impermissible”:

  1. A charge calculated as a percentage of the fee received by a lawyer.
  2. A charge calculated as a percentage of the client’s recovery in the matter.
  3. A charge based on the perceived value of the case referred to or accepted by a participating lawyer.
  4. A flat charge that differs based on the perceived value of the case referred to or accepted by a participating lawyer.
  5. A flat charge per case accepted by a participating lawyer.
  6. A flat charge per case accepted by a participating lawyer that differs based on the type of matter (e.g., personal injury versus family law).

The opinion states that it is designed solely to address what constitutes impermissible fee splitting, and that lawyers should not “assume that a lawyer may participate with a particular qualifying provider solely because the qualifying provider’s method of charging for its services falls within one of the methods the board concludes generally would be found to be permissible.”

Bottom line:  The Ethics Opinion identifies various fee arrangements between lawyers and qualifying providers which may or may not comply with the new rule.  Any lawyers who participate in (or are considering participating in) referrals from a private entity should carefully review this ethics opinion and the amended rule, since lawyers can be disciplined if the referral service (qualifying provider) fails to comply with the Florida Bar rules.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

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 2016 Lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 18-1 lawyer referral qualifying provider fees, Florida Bar ethics opinion qualifying provider- lawyer fees, Florida Bar lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Bar matching services, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer Referral Services

ABA Formal Opinion 484 provides guidance when a client may need third party legal fee financing

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss ABA Formal Opinion 484, which addresses third party financing of the lawyer’s fees and concludes that a lawyer may refer a client to a fee financing companies even if the lawyer owns a financial interest in the lender or broker if the lawyer complies with ethical obligations, including fairness and full disclosure.  ABA Formal Opinion 484 is here: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba_formal_opinion_484.pdf

American Bar Association Formal Opinion 484, which was released on November 27, 2018, concludes that lawyers may refer clients to fee financing companies even if the lawyer owns a financial interest in the lender or broker with certain caveats and requirements.

The opinion outlines the various ways that fee financing services are being used, including a client’s direct application for a loan from a financing company to cover the lawyer’s fees, which the client then pays back to the lender with interest rates between 5 and 15 percent. In another situation, the lawyer pays an initial fee to a finance company in order to submit loan applications from clients and, if the client receives the loan, the lawyer receives the funds minus a 10 percent financing fee.  In a similar arrangement, the lawyer assists a client to set up what is amounts to a retainer or voucher for the fees through a lender minus a service charge.

In other situations, the funds loaned to the client may go directly to the client and the lawyer is notified, sometimes through an online portal a service, for which the lawyer pays. There are also “same as cash” programs, where the lawyer helps the client apply for the loan and, if a loan is made, the financial relationship remains between the lender and the client.  Finally, a lawyer may work with a financial brokerage company that helps find legal fee financing options.

In the above arrangements, the attorney making the referral does not have an ownership or financial interest in the lender or broker and must explain the arrangement so the client can make an informed decision.  The opinion states that these arrangements are permissible only if other Model Rules of Professional Conduct are met, including: Model Rule 1.2(c) (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer); Model Rule 1.4(b) (Communications); Model Rule 1.5(a) and (b) (Fees); Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information); Model Rule 1.7(a)(2) (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients); and Model Rule 1.9(a) (Duties to Former Clients).

In a footnote, the opinion refers to Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 16-2 and states that this opinion “reason(ed) that legal fee financing is not impermissible fee sharing because it is a form of credit plan and Florida ethics rules permit lawyers to accept payments through credit plans, which include credit cards.”  That opinion specifically addressed the fees of a criminal defense lawyer.  Florida Bar Ethics Op. 16-2 is here:  https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-16-2/

The opinion only addresses situations where a lawyer is being paid from funds that a client borrowed and does not address a nonrecourse cash advance to a litigant in exchange for a percentage of the judgement or settlement.  According to the opinion, if a lawyer recommends a fee financing or brokerage company in which the lawyer has an ownership or financial stake, the lawyer must disclose the relationship, ensure fair and reasonable terms, advise the client to seek independent legal advice on the transaction, and obtain the client’s  written informed consent.

The ABA formal opinion further states that if a lawyer charges a higher fee to account for any transactional costs or subscription fees the lawyer must pay the lender, that fee must be reasonable and disclosed to the client. Additionally, the opinion cautioned that lawyers should not “recommend the finance company or broker to the client even though fee financing is not in the client’s interests because the client’s arrangement of financing best assures payment or timely payment of the lawyer’s fee.”

“Finally, although not among the fee financing scenarios of which the Committee has been made aware, it is conceivable that a lawyer might acquire an ownership or other financial interest in a finance company or brokerage, or wish to form such a business. If a lawyer did so and referred a client to that entity, the lawyer would be entering into a business transaction with the client or would be acquiring a security or pecuniary interest adverse to the client, or both. In those situations, the lawyer would need to comply with Model Rule 1.8(a) (which is substantially the same as Florida Bar Rule 4-1.8(a).”

Bottom line:  This ABA opinion sets forth the lawyer’s obligations related to third party financing of the lawyer’s fees and concludes that a lawyer may refer a client to a fee financing company even if the lawyer owns a financial interest in the lender or broker if the lawyer complies with all ethical obligations.

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 ABA Formal Opinion 484 third party financing of attorneys fees, ABA formal opinions, ABA Model Rules, Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 16-2- legal fee and other third party financing, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism

ABA issues Formal Ethics Opinion 483 providing ethics guidance to lawyers before and after a cyber breach or hack

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent (October 17, 2018) American Bar Association Formal Opinion 483 which provides guidance to lawyers before and when there has been a cyber breach or hack.  The opinion is here:  https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba_formal_op_483.pdf

Just like to rest of our digital world, lawyers are susceptible to cyber hacking/breaches when using digital devices and programs or otherwise using the internet.  The ABA Opinion confirms the duty that lawyers have to attempt to prevent such hacks and breaches and also the lawyer’s obligation to notify clients of a data hack/breach.

The opinion provides the reasonable steps that lawyers can take to meet their obligations under the ABA model rules and emphasizes the importance for lawyers to plan for an electronic breach or cyberattack and discusses how model rules may apply when an incident is either detected or suspected. According to the opinion, the following Model Rules of Professional Conduct would potentially apply:

Rule 1.1 (competence), requiring lawyers to develop sufficient competence in technology to meet their obligations under the rules after a breach; Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property), requiring lawyers to protect trust accounts, documents and property the lawyer is holding for clients or third parties; Rule 1.4 (communication), requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to communicate with clients after an incident; Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), regarding issues of confidentiality in the client-lawyer relationship; Rule 5.1 (lawyer oversight), which sets forth the responsibilities of a managing partner or supervisory lawyer and; Rule 5.3 (nonlawyer oversight), which sets forth the responsibilities of supervisors who are nonlawyers.

The opinion states that “(w)hen a breach of protected client information is either suspected or detected, Rule 1.1 requires that the lawyer act reasonably and promptly to stop the breach and mitigate damage resulting from the breach…(h)ow a lawyer does so in any particular circumstance is beyond the scope of this opinion.”

“As a matter of preparation and best practices, however, lawyers should consider proactively developing an incident response plan with specific plans and procedures for responding to a data breach. The decision whether to adopt a plan, the content of any plan and actions taken to train and prepare for implementation of the plan should be made before a lawyer is swept up in an actual breach.”

Bottom line:  This ABA opinion addresses and discusses a lawyer’s obligations in attempting to prevent a cyber hack or breach and also provides guidance regarding the lawyer’s obligations if a breach/hack occurs.  All lawyers should be addressing serious issue this now and should consult their state/jurisdiction’s ethics rules to insure compliance.

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 ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 483 guidance to lawyers before and after a cyber breach or hack, ABA formal opinions, ABA Model Rules, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer competence technology, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer technology competence, Lawyer technology competence after hack or breach

Florida Bar Board of Governors approves revised rule on qualifying provider fees and ethics opinion on “expert” and “specialist”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent (October 12, 2018) vote of The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors to approve substantive revisions to Bar Rule 4-7.14 related to the use of “expert” and “specialist” and to approve proposed ethics advisory opinion 17-2, which addresses payment arrangements between lawyers and lawyer referral services (now called qualified providers).    The ethics opinion has been renumbered to 18-1 and the Bar’s notice of the approval of the opinion and requesting comments with a link to the opinion is here:  https://www.floridabar.org/ethics/etprop-advisory/

With regard to the proposed revised Bar Rule 4-7.14, the Board considered a new proposed amendment that is designed to remove the portions of the rule which were found unconstitutional by the federal court judge in 2015.  The proposed revised rule adds new subdivisions to comply to the federal court’s order and also to address the concerns of the Florida Supreme Court, which rejected the Bar’s previous proposed revised rule.

Revised Bar Rule 4-7.14 would allow non-certified attorneys to call themselves “expert” or “specialist” if they can objectively verify that claim based upon the lawyer’s education, training, experience, and “substantial involvement” in the area of practice. The amended rule would also allow law firms to call themselves “experts” or “specialists” if that claim can be objectively verified for at least one lawyer in the firm.  The law firm making the claim would be required to have a disclaimer stating that not all firm members meet the same standards, if there are lawyers who do not qualify.

With regard to Ethics Advisory Opinion 18-1,the Board considered an opinion drafted by the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics provides that whether a particular payment method between lawyers and qualifying providers f/k/a lawyer referral services is permissible must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  The opinion sets out criteria for determining whether a payment plan is proper and ethical and the ethics opinion is discussed and summarized in the Bar News article here: https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2F06fb4fe9ad6425748525830f004fc60b

The Board considered and approved the ethics opinion at its meeting on October 12, 2018 and will consider any comments at its December 14, 2018 meeting in Naples, Florida.

Bottom line:  The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors has taken further steps to address the issues related to the use of “expert” and “specialist” (and the federal court’s ruling that its application was unconstitutional and issuing an injunction) and also the payment arrangements between lawyers and lawyer referral services/qualifying providers.

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 2018 Florida lawyer referral qualifying provider rule revisions, 2018 Florida lawyer referral service matching service rule revisions, Attorney Ethics, Florida 2018 lawyer referral service qualifying provider rule revisions', Florida Bar, Florida Bar ethics opinion qualifying provider- lawyer fees, Florida Bar lawyer referral rule revisions, Florida Bar matching services, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Lawyer Referral Services, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising expert and specialist, Lawyer Advertising opinion, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer advertising specialties and certification, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinions, lawyer improper social media conduct, Lawyer Referral Services, Lawyer sharing fees with non-lawyers, Lawyers use of specialization and expertise ethics

Florida Bar Professional Ethics Committee approves staff opinion addressing lawyer responses to negative online reviews

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee’s recent approval of Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049, which addresses lawyer responses to negative online reviews.

On June 15, 2018, the Florida Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee unanimously approved Florida Bar Staff Opinion 38049 which states that a lawyer may post a limited response to a negative online review that the lawyer says falsely accuses her of theft; however, the lawyer may not reveal attorney/client confidences.  The Staff Opinion is here:  file:///C:/Users/jcorsmeier/Downloads/PRR_Corsmeier_-_38049_KNS_responding_to_negative_online_review_PEC_approved.pdf.  The Professional Ethics Committee will not issue a separate opinion.

The lawyer stated in her inquiry that she received a negative online review and would like to respond to the former client’s negative review that the lawyer “took her money and ran” by using the language suggested in Texas Ethics Opinion 662 and adding an “objectively verifiable truthful statement” that the Court entered an order authorizing the lawyer to withdraw as counsel for the former client.

The lawyer stated that she believed the added language was “proportional and restrained, consistent with the Texas Ethics Opinion, directly addressed the allegations of the former client, and should be permissible under the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the First Amendment.”  The staff opinion found that the post would reveal confidential information without obtaining the former client’s consent and cited the comment to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6.

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

“The inquirer refers to Texas Ethics Opinion 622. That opinion explains that a lawyer may not respond to client’s negative internet review if the response discloses confidential information.  The opinion gives an example of a proportional and restrained response that does not reveal any confidential information:  A lawyer’s duty to keep client confidences has few exceptions and in an abundance of caution I do not feel at liberty to respond in a point by point fashion in this forum. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that the post presents a fair and accurate picture of the events.  The suggested language found in Texas Ethics Opinion 622 would be an acceptable response for the inquirer.”

“An attorney is not ethically barred from responding to an online review by a former client where the former client’s matter has concluded…(h)owever, the duty of confidentiality prevents the attorney from disclosing confidential information about the prior representation absent the client’s informed consent or waiver of confidentiality.”

In 2016, a Colorado lawyer was suspended for six months after he responded to a negative online review and revealed, among other things, that the client had bounced a check and committed unrelated felonies.  There have been other disciplinary cases where a lawyer has been sanctioned for revealing confidences in responding to a negative online review, including: In the Matter of Margrett A. Skinner, Case No. S14Y0661 (Ga. Supreme Court 5/19/14), where a Georgia lawyer received a reprimand for revealing confidences in responding to a negative online review, and In re John P. Mahoney, Bar Docket No. 2015-D141 (2015), where a lawyer received in formal admonishment in 2015.

Bottom line:  As I have blogged and advised in the past, lawyers are prohibited from revealing client confidences unless an exception to the Bar rules applies either requiring or permitting the disclosure.  Permissive exceptions include responding to a Bar complaint, defending a lawsuit filed against the lawyer, and defending against criminal charges involving the representation of a client.  A negative online review is not currently one of those exceptions.

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 and confidentiality, Confidences and negative online client review, Florida Bar, Florida Bar ethics opinion responding to negative online review, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics responding to negative online review complaint confidentiality, Lawyer revealing client confidential information on internet, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

New Jersey Supreme Court declines to review ethics opinion finding that AVVO’s referral program violates Bar Rules

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent New Jersey Supreme Court Order denying a petition requesting review of the New Jersey Ethics Opinion which found that AVVO’s referral program violated that state’s Bar rules.  The case is In the Matter of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Joint Opinion 732, The Committee on Attorney Advertising Joint Opinion 44, and the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law Joint opinion 45, September Term 2017, Case No. 079852.  The Order is here is here: https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/399/11771/Avvo-Cert-Order.pdf

The June 1, 2018 Order denied a petition for certification by Consumers for a Responsive Legal System, an organization that represents Avvo and other online companies providing lawyer referrals.  The petition requested that the Court review a June 21, 2017 joint ethics opinion which found that Avvo facilitates improper fee-splitting and may not be utilized by New Jersey lawyers.

The joint opinion was issued by the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, the NJ Committee on Attorney Advertising and the NJ Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.  The Attorney General’s Office, representing the committees, and the New Jersey State Bar Association opposed the petition.  I blogged about the joint opinion in my Ethics Alerts here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/new-jersey-joint-ethics-opinion-finds-that-fees-paid-to-avvo-for-client-referrals-violate-new-jersey-bar-rules/ and the joint opinion is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5plgfqgi26zuym1/ACPE%20732%20Avvo%2C%20LegalZoom%2C%20Rocket%20Lawyer%206.21.17.pdf?dl=0

The joint opinion was issued in response to a bar association inquiry requesting an opinion on “whether it is ethical for lawyers to participate in certain online, non-lawyer, corporately owned services to the public” specifically naming Avvo, LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer and their referral programs.  The opinion found that the LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer programs would be ethical if the programs were registered with the state; however, the opinion found ethics issues with the structure of Avvo’s “pay-for-service” programs and stated that lawyers are prohibited from participating in those programs.

According to the joint opinion, Avvo offers “Avvo Advisor”, which permits customers to buy a 15-minute telephone conversation with a lawyer for a $40.00 flat rate with Avvo keeping a $10.00 “marketing fee”, and “Avvo Legal Services,” where customers would pay flat fees to Avvo for legal services that would be provided by AVVO affiliated lawyers.  Avvo would then pay the lawyer and keep a “marketing” fee.  “The participating lawyer receives the set price for the legal service provided, then pays a portion of that amount to Avvo”. “The label Avvo assigns to this payment (“marketing fee”) does not determine the purpose of the fee. … lawyers pay a portion of the legal fee earned to a nonlawyer; this is impermissible fee sharing.”

The joint opinion also found that marketing fees that lawyers would be required to pay Avvo are not for advertising but are an impermissible “referral fee” under the definitions in New Jersey Bar Rules 7.2(c) and 7.3(d).  In addition, holding the lawyer’s fee until the service is provided violates the requirement that a lawyer maintain funds in a trust account under the rules.

The joint opinion concluded: “New Jersey lawyers may not participate in the Avvo legal service programs because the programs improperly require the lawyer to share a legal fee with a nonlawyer in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a), and pay an impermissible referral fee in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2(c) and 7.3(d).”

Bottom line:  The New Jersey Supreme Court’s denial of the petition to review the joint opinion leaves New Jersey as one state which has determined that a lawyer’s participation in the “AVVO Advisor” and “AVVO Legal Services” lawyer referral plans is a violation of that state’s lawyer ethics rules.

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 2017 New Jersey joint ethics opinion re AVVO lawyer referral services violate Bar rules, Attorney Ethics, AVVO Advisor fee splitting, AVVO fee sharing and referral fee plans, Avvo legal 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, New Jersey Supreme Court Order- no review of 2017 NJ AVVO joint ethics opinion

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