Tag Archives: Lawyer failure to communicate

Florida lawyer permanently disbarred for, inter alia, soliciting and making misrepresentations on website and representing clients in other states

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court Order approving the Report of Referee and permanently disbarring a Florida lawyer for soliciting over the internet and representing clients in states in which she was not admitted, lack of diligence and communication, making false statements, and failing to respond to the allegations.  The case is: The Florida Bar v. Alma C. Defillo, Case No. SC15-593 (August 28, 2015).  The Order is here: http://www.floridabar.org/DIVADM/ME/MPDisAct.nsf/DISACTVIEW/4C69AF1FB7B03A1285257EB4000922AC/$FILE/_27.PDF.

According to the Report of Referee, which is attached, The Florida Bar filed a 6 count Complaint against the lawyer and a Request for Admissions on March 31, 2015.  The lawyer failed to respond and the referee entered a default and “the matters pled in the Bar’s Complaint became the substantive facts in this case by operation of law.”

“(R)espondent, despite being only a member of The Florida Bar, also maintained offices in North and South Carolina given her immigration practice. As a result of respondent’s significant misconduct in South Carolina (detailed below), the South Carolina Supreme Court permanently debarred respondent in that state. In order to protect the interests of respondent’s South Carolina clients, the South Carolina Supreme Court appointed a Receiver. The Florida Bar was able to track down some of respondent’s files and has been cooperating with the Receiver to provide the files of respondent’s South Carolina clients that are in the Bar’s possession.”

The Report states that the lawyer represented various clients who were residents of North Carolina and South Carolina in immigration/INS matters.  The clients complained that the lawyer failed to communicate with them, lacked diligence, and did not perform any services on their behalf.  In addition, according to the Report:

On November 1, 2013, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) of the Supreme Court of South Carolina charged respondent with violations of their Rules.

Although respondent is not admitted in South Carolina, she maintained a law office, advertised, and offered legal services there.

The ODC charged respondent with writing to state judicial officers regarding her South Carolina clients’ criminal cases in violation of Rules 7.1 and 7.5(a)&(d) South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (“SCRPC”) and Rule 407 South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (“CSACR”).

Respondent’s letterhead and advertisements also failed to clarify that she was not admitted in South Carolina in violation of  Rules 5.5(b)(2), 7.1, and 7.5(a)&(b) SCRPC.

Similarly respondent’s website, available to residents of South Carolina and referencing her office in Greenville, contained misrepresentations and omitted facts necessary to make the contents considered as a whole not materially misleading in violation of Rule 7.1(a) SCRPC by failing to state that she was not admitted in South Carolina.

Additionally, respondent’s website advertised her experience in both criminal and family matters and offered to “analyze the facts of [her prospective client’s] cases by applying current … State Laws” in violation of Rules 5.5(b)(2) and 7.1(a) SCRPC.

Respondent’s website misleadingly referred to “lawyers” and “attorneys” when in fact, respondent was a sole practitioner in violation of Rules 7.1(a) and 7.5(d) SCRPC.

Respondent’s website compared her services to other lawyers in a way that could not be factually substantiated in violation of Rule 7.1(c) SCRPC.

Respondent’s website used “specialist” and “expert” in violation of Rule 7.4(b) SCRPC despite not being certified by the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Respondent’s business cards and other print advertisements, regarding her Greenville office, failed to disclose that respondent was not admitted in South Carolina in violation of Rules 5.5(b)(2) and 7.1(a) SCRPC.

Respondent’s radio advertisements, disseminated in South Carolina, failed to disclose that respondent was not admitted in South Carolina in violation of Rules 5.5(b)(2) and 7.1(a) SCRPC.

Respondent, despite initially cooperating with the investigation in South Carolina, then failed to respond in violation of Rule 8.1(b) SCRPC.

Based on respondent’s failure to respond, the ODC noticed respondent for an interview. Respondent failed to appear in violation of 8.1(b) SCRPC.

In respondent’s initial response to ODC, she misrepresented that her practice was limited to immigration law and that she had not communicated otherwise in any way in violation of Rule 7(a) Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (“RLDE”).

By virtue of the foregoing respondent also violated Rules 7(a)(1)&(3) RLDE and Rules 407 & 413 SCACR by violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and failing to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority.

On July 29, 2014, based on the charges filed by ODC, the Supreme Court of South Carolina entered its Order permanently debarring respondent from seeking any form of admission to practice in South Carolina and from advertising or soliciting business in South Carolina without first seeking leave of that Court. The Court also ordered that respondent complete the South Carolina Bar’s Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School and Advertising Workshop before asking leave of the Court to practice or advertise.

The Report further states:  “Respondent is currently serving a one-year suspension in SC14-1419, TFB File Nos. 2012-00,321(4B) and 2013-00,832(4B). Additionally, Respondent was recently held in contempt for her failure to respond to the two initial grievances herein and was therefore also suspended indefinitely in SC15-293, TFB File No. 2015-00,468(4B).”

After considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, case law, and the Florida Standards for Lawyer Sanctions, the referee recommended permanent disbarment and payment of the Bar’s costs.  The lawyer did not request review of the recommendation and the Supreme Court adopted the Report of Referee and permanently disbarred the lawyer.  The Supreme Court approved the Report of Referee and permanently disbarred the lawyer.

The lawyer was also permanently barred from practicing law in South Carolina in 2014 and my blog on that case here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/south-carolina-supreme-court-prohibits-another-florida-lawyer-from-practicing-law-who-solicited-over-the-internet-made-misrepresentations-and-represented-clients/

Bottom line: This lawyer was advertising for clients in immigration matters on the internet and made misrepresentations regarding the scope and location of her practice.  The lawyer also was negligent, failed to communicate with clients, and failed to perform services.  This shows how the internet can be misused by a lawyer to obtain clients in other states in which the lawyer is not admitted to practice.

Let’s be careful out there!

Disclaimer:  this Ethics Alert is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice 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.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

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 misrepresentation, dishonesty, Florida Bar, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer lack of communication with client, Lawyer lack of diligence, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer permanent disbarment, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sanctions for unlicensed practice of law, Lawyer unlicensed practice of law, Unauthorized practice of law

Ethics Alert – Iowa Supreme Court reprimands lawyer who billed corporate client for costs of sanctions which “resulted from his own lack of diligence and communication”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Iowa Supreme Court opinion which adopted a disciplinary report and imposed a reprimand on a lawyer who billed his corporate client for costs of attorney’s fee sanctions which “resulted from his own lack of diligence and communication”. The disciplinary opinion is: Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Board v. Cameron Davidson, Case No. 14-0878 (August 18, 2014). The disciplinary opinion is online here: http://www.abajournal.com/images/main_images/Davidson.pdf and here: https://www.iacourtcommissions.org/ViewLawyer.do?id=2704

According to the court opinion and discipline report, the lawyer represented Deere & Co. as a defendant in defending an employment discrimination lawsuit filed in federal court. The plaintiff was a former Deere employee who was terminated for allegedly violating Deere’s employee travel expense policy; however, she claimed that the termination was a result of age discrimination.

The lawyer responded to the plaintiff’s interrogatories and request for production requesting the names of all Deere employees who were investigated during the same time period (2005-2012) for travel expense violations and identified 4 employees; however, he did not provide the requested birth dates. The plaintiff’s lawyer filed a motion to compel which was granted and attorney’s fees sanctions of $700.00 were imposed. The lawyer ultimately self-reported and stated that the client had informed him it wanted to object to the plaintiff’s discovery requests, which resulted in the initial discovery dispute and the $700.00 sanction. The lawyer stated “I believed that I had discussed this matter with my client, however, my file does not reflect that I sent the motion (to compel and for sanctions) or the order to the client.”

The plaintiff filed a second motion to compel and for sanctions on another discovery issue. The lawyer stated that he was unsure how to respond to the second motion and admitted that he “ultimately missed the deadline to file a resistance or a reply.” The court granted the second Motion to Compel and imposed a sanction of $1,750.00 in attorney’s fees. “I again failed to send the motion or the court’s order to the client, which was not aware of the seriousness of the discovery dispute.”

The plaintiff filed a third motion to compel and for sanctions, which was also granted and sanctions of $1,050.00 in attorney’s fees were imposed. The lawyer also failed to send the plaintiff’s third motion and the court order imposing sanctions to the client. According to the report: “Despite these Orders (the lawyer) continued to delay providing complete interrogatory answers (and) failed to arrange for two of the employees to be deposed, as requested by the plaintiff.”

The lawyer billed the client for the costs of all three sanctions. In the billings, the lawyer called the first $700.00 sanction “Miscellaneous; Penalty on Discovery; Doug Stephens Law Firm”, the billing for the second $1,750.00 sanction “Misc(ellaneous Costs)”, and the billing for the third $1,050.00 sanction “Miscellaneous; Attorneys’ Fees; B. Douglas Stephens.” According to the disciplinary report, “(o)nly after your former partners learned of the sanctions orders was the client fully informed.”

The lawyer was found to have violated Iowa disciplinary rules related to lack of communication, lack of diligence, and charging an unreasonable fee or expense and was reprimanded.

Bottom line: This lawyer was found to be negligent in timely responding to discovery related matters, which resulted in three separate attorney’s fee sanctions and, not only did he fail to tell the client about the negligence and the sanctions which resulted from his negligence, but he also had the audacity to bill the client for the costs of the sanctions. That certainly was not a good decision and it is somewhat surprising that the lawyer only received a reprimand.

Let’s be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this Ethics Alert is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice 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.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
jcorsmeier@jac-law.com
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, deceit, dishonesty, Excessive fee, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer lack of communication with client, Lawyer lack of competence, Lawyer lack of diligence, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer unreasonable fee

West Virginia lawyer receives 30 day suspension for failing to move to correct sentencing order after repeated requests and promises to do so and after being admonished 5 previous times for similar misconduct

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss a recent West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals opinion imposing a 30 day suspension on a lawyer who failed to communicate with a client on multiple occasions, failed to follow through to correct a sentencing order, and failed to respond to the Bar complaint (and had been admonished 5 previous times for similar misconduct).  The disciplinary case is: Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Sullivan, No. 12-0005 (1/17/12).  The opinion is online at: http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/docs/spring2013/12-0005.pdf.

According to the opinion, the lawyer was an assistant public defender and was appointed to represent a defendant in a criminal matter.  On December 7, 2009, the client/defendant entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to a 1-5 year term of imprisonment.  The circuit court did not enter the sentencing order until approximately nine months later.  Shortly after entry of the sentencing order, the client was informed by the West Virginia Division of Corrections that his parole eligibility, based on his sentencing order, would be October 1, 2011; however, the client believed that the sentencing order failed to accurately reflect his effective sentencing date, and that he was actually supposed to be parole eligible on April 11, 2011, almost six months earlier.

The client and members of his family contacted the lawyer and requested that he act to correct the sentencing order.  The lawyer promised that he would look into the issue; however, after receiving no response, the client and his family made repeated efforts to contact the lawyer, leaving messages at his office, and also leaving a message with one of his supervisors.  The lawyer never responded to the messages and the client then filed a disciplinary complaint against the lawyer.

The lawyer failed to respond to multiple communications from disciplinary counsel requesting a response to the complaint.  On December 15, 2011, disciplinary counsel filed a Statement of Charges alleging that the lawyer violated the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically, Rule 1.3, which requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; Rule 1.4, which requires a lawyer to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matter and to promptly respond to reasonable requests for information, and to explain matters to clients to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and Rule 8.1(b), which makes it a violation of the Rules for a lawyer, in connection with a disciplinary proceeding, to knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information.

The Statement of Charges also listed several aggravating factors, including that the lawyer (1) had substantial experience in the practice of law, (2) had been admonished on five separate occasions by the ODC for similar conduct, (3) had demonstrated a pattern and practice of failing to adequately communicate with clients, and (4) had demonstrated a pattern and practice of failing to respond to lawful requests from the ODC.

The lawyer signed a stipulation admitting to the facts and violations and agreeing to a public reprimand.  The opinion rejected the stipulation and imposed a 30 day suspension noting that, at the time of his fifth admonishment, the lawyer “pledged to the [Office of Disciplinary Counsel], and to the Board, that he would be more diligent in representing his clients” but…the record shows that at the same time he was making this pledge, the Respondent was ignoring repeated requests from [this client and his family to take the action necessary to correct a facially inaccurate sentencing order…there is no evidence that a sixth admonishment, even in the heightened form of a public reprimand, would appropriately sanction the respondent attorney, or that it would serve as an effective deterrent to other members of the Bar or maintain public confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession.  We do not believe that supervised probation alone will be sufficient to protect the public’s interest.”

Bottom line:  This lawyer was given multiple chances to improve his client communication skills and act with diligence but failed to do so.  He also failed to respond to the initially disciplinary complaint, which resulted in an additional violation of the Bar Rules.  He will now serve a 30 day suspension.  Please don’t go there…

…and be careful out there!

Disclaimer: this e-mail does not contain any legal advice 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.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

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, Communication with clients, joe corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer lack of communication with client, Lawyer lack of diligence