Tag Archives: Lawyer misrepresentation

Florida Bar obtains emergency suspension of lawyer for “waging a personal and public war on social media”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent emergency suspension of a Florida lawyer for allegedly “waging a personal and public war on social media against attorneys representing clients” and “resort(ing) to terrorist legal tactics.”  The case is: The Florida Bar v. Ashley Ann Krapacs, Case No.: SC-277 Lower Tribunal No(s) 2018-50,829 (17I)FES; 2018-50,851(17I);2019-50,081(17I) and The Florida Bar’s Petition for Emergency Suspension is here: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2019/277/2019-277_petition_72430_petition2dsuspension2028emergency29.pdf

According to the Petition, the lawyer “launched an attack of massive and continuous proportions” on social media and “(c)learly, respondent’s fury has no bounds.” The lawyer’s alleged “terrorist legal tactics” began after she moved to Florida and initiating a petition for a domestic violence injunction against a former boyfriend in Texas and lawyer Russell Williams represented the ex-boyfriend.  The lawyer dismissed the case; however, she then allegedly “began a social media blitz” on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube.

The lawyer allegedly called  Williams an “old white male attorney” and a “bully attorney” who had threatened to file a motion for sanctions against her if she did not dismiss the case.  She also stated that “opposing counsel flat-out LIED” and the judge ‘didn’t bat an eye.’”.  She also allegedly used the hashtag #holymisogyny on social media when talking about the case and accused the judge of membership in the “Old Boys Club.”

The lawyer also allegedly continued the misconduct in a YouTube video posted after Williams hired lawyer Nisha Bacchus to represent him and filed a lawsuit against the lawyer for Libel, Slander, Malicious Prosecution and Injunctive Relief.  In the video, the lawyer allegedly called Williams “a moron and a sexist and a bully” and said Bacchus was “a backstabbing traitor” for representing “misogynist pigs, misogynist bullies.”  “Also, she’s a door lawyer. Which is basically a lawyer who takes anything that walks in the door in any area of law.  Because you can’t do every area of law and do them all well. You just can’t. Some people try and they end up like Nisha Bacchus who are so hard up that they’ll take anything, including shit like this. So I almost feel bad for her because he’s playing her. It is really obvious from the way that she presents herself that she’ll take anything if the price is right. Or even if it’s not.”  The lawyer also used hashtags #sellout and #womanhater for Bacchus.

The Petition states that the lawyer made multiple posts on Facebook “accusing The Florida Bar of being corruptly influenced by Nisha Bacchus. Bacchus requested a domestic violence injunction against the lawyer after she posted a Home Alone meme showing a shotgun pointed at an individual and added the caption “when opposing counsel tries to use the same exact trick you saw in your last case.”  According to the Petition, “(o)n February 1, 2019, Judge Moon granted an indefinite Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking against (the lawyer) as a result of her actions toward Nisha Bacchus”

The Florida Supreme Court granted the emergency petition in an Order dated February 27, 2019 with 2 of the court’s seven justices dissenting and stating that they would not grant it.  The February 27, 2019 Supreme Court Order suspending the lawyer on an emergency basis is here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2019/277/2019-277_disposition_145483_d31i.pdf.  A referee will be appointed.

Bottom line:  This Petition is highly unusual and there may be a question as to whether such conduct constitutes “great public harm” under the Florida bar Rule.  It will certainly be interesting to see how this drama plays out.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, false statements, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer discipline social media misuse, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics Facebook, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer sanctions for lying and posting on social media, Lawyer social media ethics, Lawyers and social media

Illinois disciplinary complaint alleges that lawyer lied about cancer to obtain delays in litigation and justify LSAT score

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Illinois disciplinary complaint that alleges that a lawyer falsely claimed that both he and a nonexistent son had stomach cancer in multiple false statements that began when he applied for admission to law school.  The disciplinary matter is: In the Matter of Vincenzo Field, Commission No. 2018PR00015.  The first amended disciplinary complaint was filed on February 8, 2019 and the link is here:  https://www.iardc.org/18PR0015CM.html

The amended disciplinary complaint alleges that the lawyer made the false cancer claims to courts as well as to his law school and that he made false statements to his former law firm regarding an expert witness who was supposedly unable to provide services because his daughter was hit by a car.

The amended complaint also alleges the lawyer falsely told his law school he had a score of 158 the first time he took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) because he recently had surgery for a stomach cancer called leiomyosarcoma. He also told the law school that he obtained a score 173 on a later LSAT after he allegedly recovered from the surgery.

The amended complaint further alleges that the lawyer used the false cancer tumor and surgery excuse in August and October 2013 when he asked for an extension to the discovery deadline in a litigation matter, and again in another case in December 2015 when he requested a discovery extension. He also allegedly asked for an extension to the deadline to file a court document in the 2013 matter and falsely stated that he had to fly to Montreal for a funeral.

Further, according to the amended complaint, in July 2016, the lawyer told lawyers in another litigation matter who were representing the government that his son was scheduled to undergo cancer surgery and that he would need an extension of time. He later said his son suffered from leiomyosarcoma.  The lawyer did not have a son.  The lawyer then allegedly admitted to the court in August 2016 that he had made the false statements and said that “this is something that I have never done before.”

The lawyer is represented by counsel in the disciplinary matter, and his answer to the initial complaint states that the lawyer had used the false cancer statement in his law school application because he suffered from depression and that the depression required him to take a leave of absence from his studies and affected his ability to perform on the LSAT.

The lawyer admitted to other factual allegations in his answer, but he denied that he acted in bad faith or with the intent to mislead.  He also denied that he had any serious illness and did not admit to any disciplinary rule violations.  The answer to the complaint is here:  https://www.iardc.org/ANS18pr0015.pdf

Bottom line:  If true, the allegations against this lawyer show a serious lack of integrity and truthfulness, to say the least.  If there is an underlying health condition, this should certainly not excuse the alleged conduct; however, it must be addressed, particularly since the lawyer (through his lawyers) denies that he has a “serious illness”.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, dishonesty, false statements, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false testimony, lawyer lying about cancer to obtain delays in litigation and justify LSAT score, misrepresentations

Illinois Bar Complaint alleges that former large firm lawyer inflated hours because of perceived billing expectations

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent (January 11, 2019) Illinois Bar Complaint which alleges that an Illinois lawyer inflated his billable hours because of perceived expectations from his law firm.  The case is: In the Matter of Christopher Craig Anderson. No. 6304580 and the disciplinary Complaint is here: https://www.iardc.org/19PR0003CM.html

According to the Complaint filed by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the lawyer had worked as an associate at Kirkland & Ellis before leaving to join Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, where he was promoted to nonequity partner. The lawyer started working for Kirkland & Ellis in 2011 and Neal Gerber in 2015 and both are large law firms.

According to the Complaint:

During his time at both firms, in an attempt to meet what he perceived to be the firms’ billing expectations, Respondent recorded time beyond what he had actually spent in handling client matters, knowing that the time he recorded would be billed to his clients and that they would be asked to pay fees based on the records he created. For the days that Respondent felt he had not recorded sufficient time on client matters, he increased the time he claimed to have spent on those matters based on a number of factors, including his assessment of the likelihood that the client would object to the time he recorded. As an example, if Respondent spent 0.3 hours on a client matter, he would record that he had actually spent 0.5 hours, or he would bill 2.1 hours for work that actually took him 1.7 hours to complete.

In August 2018, Respondent reported his conduct to one of the leaders of his practice group at Neal Gerber Eisenberg. The firm then conducted an inquiry into Respondent’s billing practices, at the conclusion of which it determined to offer a refund or credit to more than 100 clients who may have been affected by Respondent’s conduct. As a result, the firm offered to return funds that amounted to 20% of Respondent’s recorded time that was actually billed to and paid by the firm’s clients, which totaled more than $150,000. The Kirkland & Ellis firm, which also had not been aware of Respondent’s conduct at the time it was occurring, similarly determined to offer refunds or credits to clients affected by Respondent’s conduct.

A Kirkland & Ellis spokesperson provided a statement to the ABA Journal: “We recently learned that a former associate during the 2011-2015 timeframe may have rounded up his billable hours to certain clients.  We take these situations very seriously and are in the process of preparing refunds or credits for all potentially impacted time that was billed to any client.”

Bottom line:  This case is another unfortunate example of a lawyer inflating billable time to meet the expectations of his law firm(s), which are both considered to be large “BigLaw” firms; however, in this case, the lawyer self-reported his misconduct to his law firm and was terminated.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

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

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, lawyer excessive fee, Lawyer excessive fees, Lawyer improper fees, Lawyer inflating fees improper billing, Lawyer misrepresentations to law firm re billings

Illinois Disciplinary Board recommends 6 month suspension for lawyer who created false internet dating profile for opposing lawyer

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Illinois Disciplinary Hearing Board Report and Recommendation which recommended a 6 month suspension for a lawyer who created a false Match.com dating profile for an opposing lawyer, falsely denied doing it, and posted false negative internet reviews on the same lawyer.  The case is In re Drew Randolph Quitschau, Commission No. 2017PR00084 (June 6, 2018).  The Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Board is here: https://www.iardc.org/rd_database/rulesdecisions.html.

A disciplinary complaint was filed against the lawyer on August 4, 2017.  The complaint stated the lawyer was a partner in a law firm in Bloomington, Illinois until February 10, 2017 when he was terminated.  The lawyer and another Illinois lawyer named Michelle Mosby-Scott had appeared as opposing counsel in 17 proceedings and both appeared as opposing counsel in seven proceedings between June 2016 and February 2017.

Count I of the complaint alleged that the lawyer engaged in dishonesty by creating a false profile on Match.com in the name of another attorney, without the other attorney’s permission, and making several false representations in that profile and also that the lawyer made a false statement to a partner at his law firm by denying any responsibility for the false profile. Counts II through V alleged that the lawyer engaged in dishonesty by using the Internet to register with organizations or subscribe to materials in the name of the same other attorney, without the other attorney’s permission. Counts VI and VII alleged that the lawyer engaged in dishonesty by posting on the Internet false and negative reviews of the professional ability of the same attorney.  The disciplinary Complaint is here: https://www.iardc.org/17PR0084CM.html

According to the Report, the lawyer admitted to all of the misconduct allegations in his Answer to the complaint and the Hearing Board found that all misconduct charges were proven.  A hearing was held on February 6 and March 2, 2018 and the Report further states:

“The Match.com profile created by Respondent included the following representations that Respondent knew were false: Mosby-Scott was separated from her husband; her children sometimes live with her; she smokes but is trying to quit; she regularly drinks alcohol; she is an agnostic; she is 56 years of age; she does not exercise and enjoys auto racing and motor cross; she has cats; and her favorite hot spots are the grocery store, all restaurants, the Pizza Ranch, all buffets, and NASCAR.

Also in September 2016, Respondent downloaded several photos of Mosby-Scott from her law firm website. He then uploaded those photos to the Match.com profile he created so that the photos could be viewed by the general public. Respondent knew the profile he created in Mosby-Scott’s name was false and knew she had not authorized him to create the profile, user name, password, or email address.

In early October 2016, Mosby-Scott became aware of the Match.com profile in her name. She filed a lawsuit requesting the court to provide her with the Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the Match.com profile. On December 9, 2016, Match.com provided to Mosby-Scott that IP address. On January 20, 2017, Comcast, the Internet provider for the Thomson & Weintraub law firm gave written notice that the law firm’s IP address was used to create the false Match.com profile for Mosby-Scott. On the same date, Terrence Kelly, a partner at Thomson & Weintraub informed employees that the firm’s IP address was used to create the false profile. He also announced that the firm would be hiring a computer expert to examine all of the firm’s computers. On about the same date, Kelly asked Respondent whether he had created the false profile, and Respondent denied doing so. Respondent knew his statement to Kelly denying that Respondent created the profile in Mosby-Scott’s name was false.”

The Report states that the Board “discussed the seriousness of the misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and concluded that a fixed term of a suspension, even a lengthy one, will not adequately maintain the integrity of the legal profession or protect the administration of justice from reproach and recommended Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months and until further order of the Court.”

Bottom line:  This lawyer admitted all of the bizarre allegations of misconduct in his Answer, including that he had created the Match.com profile “downloaded several photos of (the opposing lawyer) from her law firm website (and) then uploaded those photos to the Match.com profile he created so that the photos could be viewed by the general public” and lying to his law firm by denying that he created it.  He also admitted posting false and negative reviews of the lawyer’s professional ability on the internet; however, there is nothing in the Complaint or Report which discusses the actual motives behind this very strange and inexplicable conduct by the lawyer.  The Report and Recommendation will now be sent to the Illinois Supreme Court for review and a final opinion.

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

N

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, lawyer creating false internet profile for opposing counsel, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer false statements, lawyer improper social media conduct, Lawyer sanctions for lying and posting on social media, Lawyer social media ethics, lawyer suspension social media misconduct, Lawyers and social media

Florida Bar’s Board of Governors considers Bar Rule amendment prohibiting lawyers from using Google AdWords to misdirect results

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent proposed amendment to Florida Bar Rule 4-7.13 which would prohibit a Florida lawyer from using the name of another lawyer or law firm to trigger a search result that includes an Internet advertisement of the first lawyer.  The Florida Bar Board of Governors Agenda Item Summary of the proposed rule amendment is  here: file:///C:/Users/jcorsmeier/Downloads/Board_Agenda_Item_20c_Board_Numbering_March_2018.pdf

The Board Review Committee of the Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) is considering the amendment to Bar Rule 4-7.13 which would prohibit the unauthorized use of a lawyer’s name in metadata or Google AdWords to drive search results to a different lawyer’s website.  The BOG previously rejected a Bar Standing Committee on Advertising (SAC) opinion that reached the same conclusion, voting 23-19 to withdraw the opinion on December 13, 2013.

According to the Bar summary, the BOG voted to withdraw the SCA opinion “because the purchase of ad words (such as Google ad words or other search engines such as Yahoo or Bing) is permissible as long as the resulting advertisements or sponsored links clearly are advertising based on their placement and wording, and because meta tags and hidden text are outdated forms of web optimization that are penalized by search engines and can be dealt with via existing rules prohibiting misleading forms of advertising.”

The proposed amendment to Rule 4-7.13 and proposed comment are below:

(c) Using Names of Other Lawyers or Law Firms in Internet Advertising. 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. This prohibition applies regardless of whether the lawyer directly uses the other’s name or does so indirectly, such as through participation in a group advertising program.

Comment

Use of Other Lawyers’ Names

The reputation of a lawyer or law firm is valuable and is personal to that lawyer or law firm. A lawyer’s name and reputation may be the lawyer’s greatest professional asset. Principles of professionalism, as well as the bar’s interest in protecting the public by preventing deceptive advertising, dictate that a lawyer’s name should not intentionally be used by another lawyer in an Internet advertising scheme or campaign. A lawyer’s intentional use of another’s name as keywords or search terms in order to attract prospective clients to the lawyer’s advertising is a misuse of the other’s name and reputation and is inherently misleading or deceptive.

Bottom line:  The proposed amendment will again be on the BOG agenda at its next meeting in May 2018.  If approved by the BOG and implemented by the Florida Supreme Court, this Bar rule amendment would prohibit a lawyer from purchasing internet search engine or other key words which misdirect (or redirect) users who search for one lawyer’s name to another lawyer’s website.

Be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney Ethics, Florida Bar, Florida Bar rule using GoogleAds words to misdirect to another firm, Florida Lawyer advertising rules, Florida Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, Lawyer advertising rules, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer using GoogleAd words to misdirect users

Texas Ethics Opinion 671 prohibits anonymous contact with unnamed internet defamer to obtain information for deposition

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss recent Texas Ethics Opinion 671 which states that lawyers, and their agents, may not anonymously contact an unnamed online alleged defamer in order to obtain jurisdictional or identifying information sufficient for obtaining a deposition pursuant to Rule 202, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.  The ethics opinion was issued in March 2018 and is here:  https://www.legalethicstexas.com/Ethics-Resources/Opinions/Opinion-671 

The ethics opinion responds to an inquiry from a lawyer which asked the following question:  “Whether an attorney or attorney’s agent may anonymously contact an anonymous online defamer in order to obtain jurisdictional information sufficient for obtaining a Rule 202 deposition”

The opinion states that under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 202, a party may petition the court for an order authorizing the taking of a deposition to obtain the testimony of any person for use in an anticipated lawsuit or to investigate a potential claim or lawsuit.  Lawyers had previously relied on Rule 202 to discover both jurisdictional and identifying information regarding otherwise anonymous individuals online.

In August 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that a Texas court could not order a pre-suit deposition to identify an anonymous online defamer unless the petitioner showed that the individual had sufficient contacts with Texas for personal jurisdiction.  That decision raised the issue of how a lawyer could establish jurisdictional facts about an anonymous individual such as a cyber-stalker or an online defamer.

The opinion discusses the rules related to the lawyer’s duty not to make material misrepresentations to third parties and/or engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation as well as other state ethics opinions which address the use social media to obtain information, such as sending a “friend” request on Facebook.

The opinion extends the rationale in those state opinions and concludes that:

“(I)t is the opinion of this Committee that the failure by attorneys and those acting as their agents to reveal their identities when engaging in online investigations, even for the limited purpose of obtaining identifying or jurisdictional information, can constitute misrepresentation, dishonesty, deceit, or the omission of a material fact. Accordingly, lawyers may be subject to discipline under the Rules if they, or their agents, anonymously contact an anonymous online individual in order to obtain jurisdictional or identifying information sufficient for obtaining a Rule 202 deposition. In order to comply with the Rules, attorneys, and agents of attorneys, must identify themselves and their role in the matter in question.”

The opinion does not address or discuss the use of technology to attempt to determine the location and name of the individual without direct contact.

Bottom line:  As I have said (and blogged) in the past, the ethics opinions (and the Bar rules) prohibit using surreptitious means to contact an individual to conduct an investigation and attempt to gain information, such as sending an anonymous or disguised Facebook “friend” request.  This Texas ethics opinion extends this analogy and states that lawyers (and their agents) are prohibited from anonymously contacting an unnamed online individual  to obtain jurisdictional or identifying information sufficient for a deposition (and ultimately a lawsuit).

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, Ethics Opinion anonymous conduct over internet o obtain information, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer misconduct improper Facebook access, Lawyer misconduct improper social media access, Texas Ethics Opinion anonymous contact with unnamed internet defamer