Tag Archives: lawyer ethics

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Rule 1-3.8(e) states:

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

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

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

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

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

Washington D.C. Bar considers relaxing Bar Rules related to non-lawyer law firm ownership and fee splitting

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss a Washington D.C. Bar committee press release announcing a review regarding the potential relaxing of that jurisdiction’s non-lawyer law firm ownership rules, including potential fee sharing/splitting.  The January 23, 2020 D.C. Bar press release announcing the review is here: https://www.dcbar.org/about-the-bar/news/DC-Bar-Global-Legal-Practice-Committee-Seeks-Public-Comment-on-Rule-of-Professional-Conduct-5-4.cfm

Washington D.C. is the only U.S. jurisdiction that allows lawyers to partner with nonlawyers and those partnerships are subject to certain restrictions; however, a D.C. Bar committee has announced that it will be exploring less restrictive rules.  According to the D.C Bar press release, the D.C. Bar’s Global Legal Practice Committee will be taking public comments on its current system and potential changes until March 9, 2020.

The press release identifies “alternative business structures” and “multidisciplinary practice” as areas of interest. United Kingdom rules permit alternative business structures which authorize legal service providers to apply for licenses allowing outside ownership or non-lawyer investment.  Multidisciplinary practice refers to a type of Alternative Business Structures (ABS) firm that provides both legal and non-legal services.

The current Washington D.C. Bar rule permitting non-lawyer ownership is a modification of the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 5.4(b) and was implemented in 1991.  The rule permits lawyers to practice law in a with non-lawyer partners/owners if the non-lawyers provide professional services within the firm, the law firm solely offers only legal services, and non-lawyers follow the rules of professional conduct.

The press release states that the committee would like to receive responses from Washington D.C. law firms that have non-lawyer partners to determine if the current rules have made it easier to retain professionals including medical doctors or nurse practitioners, mental health experts, economists, lobbyists, accountants and law firm managers. The press release also states that it would like to know if there is any client demand for more types of professional services, and whether firms have lost business because of their inability to deliver these services.

The press release also requests comments regarding how law firms could benefit from sharing fees with non-lawyers, and whether this outside investment would allow greater innovation through technology use or increased financial stability.  The committee is also considering how a rule change would impact firms that currently work with third-party litigation funders, or are interested in doing this and will be examining what type of regulatory structure would work best for non-lawyers working within law firms.

California, Utah and Arizona also have Bar task forces which are examining similar potential revisions and the Chicago Bar Association has announced the creation of a task force.  The ABA’s House of Delegates will also consider a resolution that would encourage jurisdictions across the U.S. to experiment with new regulatory models at its February midyear meeting in Austin, Texas.

Bottom line:   As I indicated, Washington D.C. is the only U.S. jurisdiction that currently allows lawyers to partner with nonlawyers and those partnerships are subject to certain restrictions; however, D.C. is considering relaxing its rules and other jurisdictions are considering new rules related to non-lawyer ownership of law firms.

I will keep you advised…and be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under fee sharing, Fee sharing with non-lawyer owned firms, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sharing fees with non-lawyers, Non-lawyer ownership, Non-lawyer ownership of law firms, non-lawyer ownership of law firms and fee splitting, Uncategorized, Washington D.C.- rules related to non-lawyer ownership of law firms

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will follow the issue and keep you advised…and be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

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

Illinois disciplinary complaint alleges that law firm partner double billed clients and charged personal expenses to firm

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Illinois disciplinary complaint which alleges that a now former law firm partner double billed clients more than $108,674.00 and improperly charged personal expenses of $78,790.43 to the law firm. The case is Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission v. Robert John Hankes, Commission No. 2019PR00102, and the complaint is here:  https://www.iardc.org/19PR0102CM.html

According to the complaint, “In 2009, the firm performed services for a separate client (a construction company) in connection with a contract dispute. The firm assigned that matter an internal number that it used for billing purposes, and Respondent was aware of that number because he was the billing attorney responsible for the matter. That billing number became dormant in 2011, about two years after the firm’s involvement in the contract dispute ended.”

The financial institution’s agreements with the customer companies permitted them to be billed directly by the law firm for legal services in certain matters.  The complaint alleges that in one matter, the lawyer billed both the financial institution client and one of its lessees $23,782.50 for the same legal services related to a lease. The lawyer applied the double payment to the dormant law firm account that he reactivated and controlled.

According to the complaint, between January 31, 2018 and September 27, 2019, the lawyer sent eight more false invoices to the financial institution’s customer companies, receiving $108,674.00, which he deposited into the reactivated account. He also allegedly billed the financial institution for those same services.

During that same time, the lawyer allegedly also charged his business and personal expenses to the dormant account, receiving $78,790.43, including golf fees, dining, and travel expenses.  The lawyer was terminated in October 2019 after the alleged misconduct was discovered.

Bottom line:  If the allegations in this Illinois disciplinary complaint are true, this lawyer was greedy and believed that his surreptitious actions would keep his misconduct from being discovered.  He was wrong.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

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

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, dishonesty, double billing, false statements, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer bad conduct, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, lawyer false billing, Lawyer misappropriation, Lawyer misappropriation of fees, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer misrepresentations to law firm re billings, Lawyer overbilling excessive fees, misrepresentations, Uncategorized

Pennsylvania lawyer disbarred after practicing law for 17 years while under administrative suspension

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss a recent disbarment of a lawyer who continued to practice law for 17 years while suspended for failing to pay the annual registration fee.  The case is Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jason Michael Purcell, No. 2651 Disciplinary Docket 3, No. DB 2018 and the October 31, 2019 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order disbarring the lawyer with the detailed Report and Recommendations of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board dated September 4, 2019 is here:  http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/142DB2018-Purcell.pdf

According to the Disciplinary Board Report, the lawyer was suspended on December 1, 2002, for failing to pay his annual attorney registration fee; however, he continued to claim that he was a practicing attorney through social media.  He claimed on LinkedIn that he had “15-plus years of diverse legal experience” and that he was licensed to practice in California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.

The lawyer also falsely claimed that he held several jobs in the legal field, including working as in-house counsel and an associate broker for a private boutique real estate firm in New York from 2012 to 2017.  The Report also found that the lawyer had appeared as counsel in a drunken driving case and custody matter in 2005, worked as counsel of record in a drug case, and helped prepare a petition to recanvass voting machines in 2006.

The lawyer also represented an individual in an abuse protection matter in 2018 and told the judge in that matter that he had been reinstated; however, he never provided any documents showing that he had been reinstated.

According to the Report: “During his lengthy period of administrative suspension, respondent engaged in serious professional misconduct by continuing to hold himself out to the public as an active member of the Pennsylvania Bar and representing clients in at least five legal matters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

The lawyer was also convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol twice and he was charged with a third DUI in 2006; however, he failed to appear in the case.

The lawyer failed to respond to the disciplinary charges and did not appear at the disciplinary hearing.  The Supreme Court adopted the findings in the Board report and disbarred the lawyer.

Bottom line:  It is very surprising, to say the least, that this lawyer was able to practice for 17 years while under suspension for failing to pay his annual attorney registration fee.  It is somewhat more surprising that the lawyer did not address and pay the registration fee and request reinstatement.  Finally, it is surprising that the lawyer failed to participate in the disciplinary proceedings; however, this may be at least partially explained by the fact that he was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol twice and was charged with a third DUI in 2006, but failed to appear.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

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

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, false statements, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer disbarment for practicing while suspended, Lawyer discipline, lawyer discipline for failure to respond to complaint, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer misleading law firm information in advertising, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyer unauthorized practice of law while suspended, Lawyer unlicensed practice of law, Lawyer violation of court order, Pennsylvania lawyer disbarred for practicing law while under administrative suspension, Uncategorized

Ransomware attack against South Florida digital record storage entity block law firm’s access to electronic records

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss a recent Miami Herald article discussing a ransomware attack against a South Florida software company that manages electronic records for thousands of law firms nationwide in which digital legal documents have been held hostage.  The October 25, 2019 Miami Herald article is here:  https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article236645058.html

According to the Herald article, “a Florida law firm was forced to request more time to meet a filing deadline in a gender-discrimination employment case in federal court because it could not access its electronic documents stored with TrialWorks.”  “The firm’s attorney representing the deputy (in the Citrus County federal gender discrimination lawsuit) cited the TrialWorks’ software problem, saying the company ‘has shut down access’ to critical documents in the case. The law firm needed the documents to address a dispute over the testimony of an expert witness for Citrus County. Its response was due Friday (October 25, 2019).”

“Since Oct. 11, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel, as well as other TrialWorks clients, have been unable to access documents,” says the law firm’s motion requesting more time. “As of Oct. 24, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel remains unable to access all the necessary documents required to respond.”  “The deadline issue was quickly resolved because attorneys for Citrus County did not oppose the law firm’s request. Melton’s firm has until Nov. 14 to respond, assuming it can gain access before then to crucial records at TrialWorks.”

The article also states:  “TrialWorks acknowledged it ‘was recently targeted by a ransomware incident that did not affect our software but did prevent approximately 5 percent of our customers … from accessing their accounts.’”  “In a statement, the company said it started an internal investigation and retained independent cybersecurity experts. “We have been working around the clock to restore normal operations for our customers as quickly as possible, and nearly all customers have had access restored within a week.”  “Company officials said they have not contacted federal authorities about the ransomware attack but plan to share information from the internal investigation with law enforcement.”

“Earlier this month, TrialWorks began alerting its customers about the security breach and initially indicated it was caused by a Microsoft service outage affecting Outlook desktop and mobile apps, according to court records. But the company’s customer alerts became more ominous over the past two weeks, including one that cited a ‘ransomware incident.’”

Bottom line:  This unfortunate ransomware incident highlights the vulnerability of digital information, including information stored digitally by litigation document assistance providers such as TrialWorks.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer competence technology, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer digital document protection, Lawyer digital document security breach, Ransomware attack, Uncategorized

Florida Bar Board of Governors finds that “Ambulances Chase Us” is improper and law firm can advertise “1-800-411-Pain”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Bar Board of Governors (BOG) decisions to uphold the Florida Bar Standing Committee on Advertising (SCA) decision that “Ambulances Chase Us” is deceptive or misleading and reverse an SCA decision that a law firm’s billboards advertising the telephone number “1-800-411-PAIN” are misleading.

At its September 20, 2019, the BOG voted to uphold an SCA decision that the slogan “Ambulances Chase Us ”is deceptive or misleading under Rule 4-7.13(a) because it is “both unethical and illegal for ambulance drivers to solicit cases for lawyers and because it is factually and legally inaccurate.”

The Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics (BRC) voted to uphold the SCA finding that the advertisement is impermissible.  The BOG voted 18-14 to uphold the SCA finding.

At the same meeting, the BOG also voted, without debate, to reverse an SCA determination regarding billboards that advertise the telephone number “1-800-411-PAIN.”  As background, the SCA had voted to find that billboards are misleading under Bar Rule 4-7.13(a) because the advertisements are on behalf of the private law firm but advertise the telephone number “1-800-411-Pain” in North and Southwest Florida which was used by the now-defunct lawyer referral service called 1-800-411-Pain.  The telephone number is also currently being used by a new qualifying provider/lawyer referral service called “Path” in Southeast and Central Florida.

The law firm had argued, inter alia, that the advertisements were not misleading because they clearly show the law firm’s name. The law firm also stated that, at the BRC’s request, it will answer the telephone with the law firm’s name.

Bottom line:  There was apparently some discussion at the BOG meeting that the “Ambulances Chase Us” slogan was just an attempt at humor and was not misleading and the final 18-14 BOG vote was very close.  The 411 Pain vote reverses the SCA determination that the use of the telephone number was misleading.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

2999 Alt. 19, Suite A

Palm Harbor, Florida

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

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

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Florida lawyer advertising "411-Pain", Florida lawyer advertising "Ambulances Chase Us", Florida Lawyer Advertising opinions, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising rules, Uncategorized