Tag Archives: Lawyer misrepresentation

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

Advertisements

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

Florida lawyer who improperly advised clients regarding marijuana business resulting in their arrest and charged $799 for false marijuana card is disbarred

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion disbarring a Florida lawyer who, inter alia, incompetently advised a client regarding a marijuana growing business and charged individuals $799.00 for a falsified “patient identification card” he claimed could keep them from getting arrested for having or growing marijuana.    The case is The Florida Bar v. Ian James Christiansen (Case No. SC16-1081) (January 18, 2018).  The Supreme Court opinion is here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc16-1081.pdf

According to the opinion, The Florida Bar filed a complaint against the Jacksonville lawyer in 2016, which was assigned to a referee who held hearings.  The referee found that “in 2013, less than three months after being admitted to The Florida Bar, Respondent founded IJC Law Group, P.A., and began offering legal services and advice to clients.  At the time, Respondent had no training in the area of medical marijuana. Six months later, Respondent formed Health Law Services (HLS), and five months after that, incorporated Cannabinoid Therapy Institute (CTI). Respondent listed IJC Law Group, P.A., as CTI’s registered agent and nonlawyer Christopher Ralph—a self-professed expert in the medical marijuana industry— represented himself as CTI’s director. Ralph was also the ‘Legal Administrator and Consultant’ for HLS.”

The referee also found that the lawyer charged clients $799 for a doctor’s visit through CTI.  If the doctor found a medical necessity for the client to use marijuana, the lawyer, through HLS, provided the client with an “Official Legal Certification” and patient identification card stating that he or she had received a marijuana prescription.

The referee also found that the “doctor” to whom the lawyer referred three of the clients was not licensed to practice medicine in Florida (and the clients were not told of this”.  Two of the lawyer’s clients were provided with an “Official Legal Certification” and a “grow sign” to be posted at their residence which stated that medical marijuana cultivation was underway. The third client was provided an “Official Legal Certification” that identified one of the clients with the “grow sign” as his “authorized agent” to produce cannabis medically necessary to treat his debilitating condition.

According to the opinion, “(t)his ‘Official Legal Certification’ purported to advise law enforcement of the client’s right to cannabis as a medical necessity. Respondent advised his clients, and his clients believed, that based on Florida law, the clients had a right to possess, use, and grow cannabis due to medical necessity and that they were protected by the affirmative defense of medical necessity. Respondent did not tell his clients that this affirmative defense would not apply, if at all, until after the clients were arrested, charged, and prosecuted.”

The referee found that a number of the lawyer’s clients were arrested and prosecuted after following the lawyer’s advice.  Somewhat unbelievably, the lawyer refused to refund the fees that he charged after the clients were charged.  The lawyer was ordered to refund the fees when the trial court granted the clients’ motion for disgorgement of attorney’s fees; however, he failed to comply with the order and filed an untimely notice of appeal, which was dismissed. He also failed to respond to the trial court’s order to show cause and failed to appear at the show cause hearing. The court granted the motion for order to show cause and issued a warrant for his arrest.

“In January 2015, the police responded to the residence of the clients with the ‘grow sign’ pursuant to a 911 call.  The next day, the clients contacted Respondent to ask him if they needed to dismantle their growing operation, in expectation that law enforcement would return, and were told by Respondent they had nothing to worry about and that he or someone from his office would contact law enforcement  to discuss the situation. There was no record that Respondent ever did this. In February 2015, a fully armed SWAT team raided the clients’ home, and they were arrested and charged with manufacture of cannabis, possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a place or structure for trafficking or manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of paraphernalia, and trafficking in cannabis in excess of twenty-five pounds. In response to their arrests, Respondent encouraged the clients to file an internal affairs report regarding the damage done to their home and belongings during the raid. The clients’ home, valuables, and vehicles were ultimately seized and detained for forfeiture.”

“The clients then hired a new attorney and accepted plea deals of three years’ probation, a $15,000 fine, and 100 hours of community service. One of the clients lost her nursing license of twenty-five years and the other lost his engineering job of fifteen years. In addition, their landlord sued them for damages to the home during the raid and lost rent. The landlord prevailed and obtained a judgment in excess of $25,000 against them.”

The referee recommended that the lawyer be found guilty of violating multiple Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, be suspended for two years, and pay the Bar’s costs.  Neither the Bar nor the lawyer filed petitions for review of the referee report and recommendations; however, on July 26, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order “requiring the lawyer to show cause why the recommended sanction should not be disapproved and a more severe sanction, including disbarment, be imposed.” The lawyer filed a response on August 10, 2017, and the Bar filed a reply on August 21, 2017.

After reviewing the response and reply, the Court found that disbarment was the appropriate sanction citing the lawyer’s incompetence and the extremely serious harm to clients. The opinion also noted that the lawyer “erroneously advised his clients and provided them with legally meaningless ‘Official Legal Certifications’ purportedly authorizing them to grow and use marijuana, based on determinations made by a physician not licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Several clients who relied upon Respondent’s erroneous advice were arrested and criminally prosecuted, and their lives were devastated. Further, during the criminal proceedings pertaining to the clients and during the proceedings in this disciplinary matter, Respondent continued to insist on the correctness of his clearly erroneous legal positions, until he was ordered to show cause to this Court why he should not be disbarred. We will not tolerate such misconduct by members of The Florida Bar.”  The opinion disbarred the lawyer effective immediately.

Bottom line:  This is a quite egregious example of a lawyer’s incompetence (or worse) resulting in a nightmare of consequences for the clients, including a SWAT team raid and criminal charges and convictions.  As this case shows, a lawyer’s advice to clients regarding allegedly legal marijuana growing businesses is fraught with uncertainly and the wrong advice may result in extremely serious consequences for the clients (and the lawyer), particularly with the recent by the recent announcement by the U.S. Attorney General that the federal government will enforce federal criminal laws related to marijuana even if it is legal in an individual state.

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, Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, fraud, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer lack of competence, Lawyer lack of diligence, Lawyer lying to clients, Lawyer misconduct and fraud marijuana advice disbarment, Lawyer sanctions

Wisconsin lawyer suspended for, inter alia, smuggling heavy toothbrushes and red pepper into prison for client

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion which suspended a Wisconsin lawyer for four months for, inter alia, bringing heavy toothbrushes to client in prison and failing to adequately communicate with a drunken driving client.  The case is In the Matter of Steven Cohen, Case No.: 2015AP1350-D and the opinion is here: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=202686

According to the opinion, the lawyer was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1996. He received a private reprimand in 2007 after his conviction for one count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct which resulted from an dispute involving the lawyer and his wife.

One count of the disciplinary complaint alleged that, in 2013, the lawyer smuggled two heavy toothbrushes and red pepper to a client who was in prison after being convicted on homicide charges.  Prison authorities found the items in a search of the client after discovering a discarded white pastry bag containing a doughnut and an empty toothbrush package.  The authorities also said that the toothbrushes were heavier than the toothbrushes given to inmates and could be made into shanks (sharpened weapons), and that the crushed red pepper could be made into pepper spray.

The opinion states that: “(w)hen correctional officers interviewed Attorney Cohen about the items, he denied knowing anything about them.  Following additional investigation, Attorney Cohen was arrested for delivering contraband into the Columbia Correctional Institution. In February of 2014, the Columbia County district attorney filed a complaint charging Attorney Cohen with one felony count of delivering illegal articles to an inmate and one misdemeanor count of resisting or obstructing an officer.”

In November 2014, the lawyer pled no contest and was found guilty of a felony count of delivering illegal articles to an inmate, along with two misdemeanors.  Judgment on the felony charge was deferred.  The lawyer said that he brought the items to the prison after his client requested a toothbrush and some food and that his only motive was “from concern for the care of the inmate, and desire to serve.”

The second, third, and forth counts of the complaint alleged that the lawyer accepted a $2,500.00 fee from a DUI client without a written fee agreement and then failed to adequately communicate with the client.  When the client demanded a refund, the lawyer returned half of the fee. He denied that he failed to communicate with the client, but did not provide any documentation to support the denial.  The lawyer also claimed that he had e-mailed the client; however, the client said he did not have an e-mail address.

According to the opinion, the lawyer testified that he did not respond to the client’s telephone calls because he was not ready to speak with the client, which was “a normal trial tactic.”  He also said he did not respond since he tells his clients to call him on his cell telephone rather than his land line, and the client called on his land line. He also claimed his secretary does not take messages on the land line.

The lawyer was suspended for 4 months effective December 29, 2017 and required to pay $8,608.20 in disciplinary costs.

Bottom line:  This lawyer appears to have been attempting to provide an imprisoned client with the tools to injure other inmates, whether in self defense or otherwise.  Obviously, this was improper and the lawyer was suspended for 4 months for those actions, as well as his failure to communicate with another client and charging an improper fee.

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

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, Attorney misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer discipline- criminal misconduct smuggling contraband to client in prison, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements

Indiana criminal prosecutor suspended for 4 years for twice eavesdropping on confidential attorney/client conversations

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Indiana Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 4 years for eavesdropping on confidential attorney/client conversations with no automatic reinstatement.  The case is In the Matter of Robert Neary, No. 46S00-1512-DI-705 (Ind. SC), and the November 6, 2017 disciplinary opinion is here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11061701per.pdf

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a two-count disciplinary complaint against the lawyer on December 17, 2015, and later amended the complaint.  The amended complaint charged the lawyer with “professional misconduct in connection with his actions in two criminal cases while serving as the chief deputy prosecutor in LaPorte County (Michigan).”

The first count of the complaint alleged that the prosecutor had surreptitiously watched video feeds of an attorney/client confidential conversation in March 2014 at the Michigan City Police Department.  A defense lawyer had flipped a switch that was supposed to prevent the conversation from being recorded; however, the police controlled the live video and audio.

The lawyer and police detectives watched the conversation from the police station’s “war room.”  During the conversation, the defendant (Taylor) told his lawyer where a gun could be found.  The lawyer advised the police detectives not to recover the weapon; however, they ignored his advice and recovered the weapon.

The chief of police later learned of the recording and told the lawyer that he should provide the information the defendant’s counsel.  The lawyer subsequently provided the information to the defendant’s lawyer and also reported his misconduct to the Indiana Bar authorities.

The second count alleged that the lawyer listened to an attorney/client confidential conversation that was recorded in December 2012 at the Long Beach (Michigan) Police Department.  The defendant (Larkin) had agreed to speak with police with his lawyer present, in exchange for being charged with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.

During an 11-minute break in the questioning, the defendant discussed defense strategy and other confidential matters with his lawyer; however, the recording system was not turned off.  The lawyer viewed the recorded interview that included the attorney/client confidential discussion during the break about a month later.

According to the opinion, “Respondent first viewed the DVD of the interview, including the break discussion, about one month later. Respondent watched the entire break discussion even though the privileged status of that discussion either was, or should have been, immediately apparent to Respondent.  Respondent provided a copy of the DVD, including the break discussion, to Larkin’s counsel but did not mention to counsel that the break discussion had been recorded.”

The Larkin’s lawyer later filed a motion to dismiss the voluntary manslaughter charge alleging prosecutorial misconduct because of the recording of the discussion.  The lawyer’s response, which was sealed, provided the contents of the break discussion and included the written transcript and a DVD.  A judge later unsealed sealed the information.

The opinion noted that both of the cases had led to appeals and stated that the lawyer’s conduct had “fundamentally infringed on privileged attorney-client communications and, at an absolute minimum, has caused significant delays and evidentiary hurdles in the prosecutions of Taylor and Larkin, even assuming they still can be prosecuted at all.”  The court had reviewed the Taylor matter on appeal and described the eavesdropping as “egregious,” “flagrant,” “unconscionable,” “shameful,” “abhorrent” and “reprehensible.”

After a hearing, the hearing officer found that the lawyer had committed the Bar rule violations charged in the amended complaint and recommended a sanction ranging from a four-year suspension to disbarment.  The Indiana Bar Commission recommended disbarment.

According to the opinion: “(i)n many respects, these proceedings have painted an even more alarming picture of Respondent, in that they show Respondent gradually has retreated from his initial self-report to the Commission and has given evasive and inconsistent explanations and statements regarding the war room eavesdropping.  As aptly found by the hearing officer, ‘Respondent’s ever evolving narrative points to a lack of honesty.’”

The opinion further states: “(t)he severity of the misconduct and Respondent’s repeated transgressions certainly lend support to the notion that he should be disbarred. On the other hand, Respondent has no prior discipline, he self-reported his conduct to the Commission, and several persons testified to his good reputation in the community (although, as noted by the hearing officer, these persons did not appear to have been particularly well informed of the circumstances giving rise to these disciplinary proceedings). At the end of the day, these considerations persuade us that the door should not permanently be closed on Respondent’s legal career and that he should be afforded an opportunity at an appropriate juncture to prove by clear and convincing evidence his professional rehabilitation and fitness to resume practicing law.”

Bottom line: This prosecutor was involved in two separate serious violations of attorney/client confidentiality by viewing and listening to surreptitious recordings and clearly should have known better.  In my opinion, the lawyer was extremely fortunate that he avoided disbarment for his misconduct.

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, Attorney/client confidentiality, attorney/client privilege, Attorney/client privilege and confidentiality, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer false statements in response to Bar complaint, Lawyer false testimony, Lawyer sanctions, Prosecutor misconduct discipline, Prosecutor misconduct eavesdropping on attorney/client conversations, Prosecutorial misconduct ethics