Something to chew on during your holiday weekend.

I am nowhere near the most plugged in when it comes to lawyers on the forefront of tracking the ways in which rapid developments in technology are changing the practice of law.  I’m a bit more aware than likely most lawyers, in part because I’m constantly looking for things worth writing about here, but also because I’ve been fortunate enough over the last two years to be a members of the Tennessee Bar Association’s Special Committee on the Evolving Legal Market.

For a combination of those reasons, I’ve been reading a bit about the latest tool that Ravel Law has unleashed on the world, “Firm Analytics.”  Among other selling points that Ravel Law touts, and the one I want to leave you to think about over the weekend is:

In another first, Firm Analytics also provides rankings of firms across key variables including practice area, case volume, venue experience, and motion win rates. These leaderboards allow comparisons across substantive performance metrics, a significant innovation to traditional revenue and size rankings. As part of this launch, we are releasing rankings of the top five law firms across employment, securities, antitrust, administrative law, and bankruptcy (more below).

This is, of course, excellent information to be made available in the marketplace and with the constant creation of new ways to better, and more quickly, aggregate and synthesize data it is also inevitable for it to come into existence.

The thought I want to leave you with though is this — how crazy is it that, in many U.S. jurisdictions, if a lawyer or law firm wanted to advertise themselves using this same kind of data (win rates, success history, etc.), they would likely be opening themselves up to a disciplinary complaint under state advertising rules that prohibit lawyers from touting past successful outcomes in matters?

For example, let me pick a state at random and not a state that has any reason at all to be in the news, Montana.  If a law firm in Montana or a lawyer there decided to aggregate this data and tout their win percentages, they’d likely be at risk of seeing bar regulators accuse them of violating either or both of these provisions in Rule 7.1 prohibiting communications about a lawyer’s services that:

(b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve;

(c) proclaims results obtained on behalf of clients, such as the amount of a damage award or the lawyer’s record in obtaining favorable verdicts or settlements, without stating that past results afford no guarantee of future results and that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.

A tale as old as time.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one … it’s about a lawyer getting into trouble for overbilling … where there are examples of the lawyer even trying to claim to have billed more than 24 hours in a day.

You probably stopped me somewhere in there because you have heard it before.  The legal profession is filled with people who bill their time fastidiously and honestly.  The legal profession also has among its ranks some folks who don’t.  A West Virginia lawyer subjected to a two-year suspension from practice is among the “don’t” and, remarkably, almost got a much lesser suspension, in part, simply because he was not among the worst overbillers that a West Virginia agency – Public Defender Services – was dealing with.

That context is actually part of what makes this particular incident really worth writing about because it is another unfortunate example of discipline for overbilling coming up in a context where some people can often try to argue it away as being somehow more understandable — lawyers who are trying to make a living off of court-appointed work at unfairly low hourly rates.  The problem, of course, is that not only is that still not a particularly good excuse for deceptive billing practices but it also is counter-productive to how much more difficult it makes it for people who want to advocate for better compensation arrangements for such lawyers to gain traction.

I tend to think the frequency with which lawyers get caught for over-billing in connection with court-appointed work isn’t necessarily a matter of those lawyers being more prone to doing so as much as it is that they are more prone to getting caught because there is effectively one “client” able to see all of their time records and, literally, do the math that the clients of lawyers in private practice serving a variety of clients aren’t as readily positioned to do.

Overbilling was not the only ethical flaw of the West Virginia lawyer made the subject of this 40-page opinion of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals — interestingly enough his other problems involved missing deadlines and neglecting client matters and even includes an interesting side excursion into his suffering from low testosterone which manages to make the inflated billable numbers from prior years seem even more . . . nope, I’m not going to go for blue humor.  At least not today.

For those who don’t want to read a 40-page opinion about this kind of conduct, just a few of the highlights in terms of both the egregious nature of the billing practice and the really pretty remarkable testimony about how he stacked up compared to other lawyers in terms of Cooke-ing the books (We know while I may shrink at going blue I always rise to the opportunity for word play.)

First, here are the lawyer’s overbilling highlights uncovered by the Executive Director of West Virginia’s Public Defender Services:

  • “found to have exceeded fifteen billable hours a day on thirty-one dates from mid-January, 2014 to mid-September, 2014.” (NB: the lawyer’s claimed low testosterone problems were stated to be during and around August 2014 and the West Virginia court most certainly paid attention to that time line to point out that it was interesting that he claimed to be sleeping 10 to 16 hours a day when he couldn’t meet certain deadlines so that, at most, during the relevant time period he couldn’t bill more than 8 to 14 hours a day.)
  • “on four dates he submitted vouchers for twenty-three or greater billable hours and on two dates he submitted vouchers for greater than twenty-four hours” (including billing 27 hours on December 26)
  • “billed 2,568.5 hours, 2,279.3 hours, 2,671.2 hours, and 3,259.46 hours for the years 2011-2014, respectively. These billable hours equate to an average daily billable rate of 7 hours, 6.2 hours, 7.3 hours, and 8.9 hours, for 365 days.”
  • “rarely billed activity at less than .2 hours (12 minutes); the only .1 (6 minutes) entries are attempted phone calls and, occasionally, a hearing. Review of any and all documentation or correspondence, including email, is billed at a minimum .2 hours. Virtually every hearing entails billing .3 hours for “waiting in court,” which affords a higher hourly rate.”
  • “On April 17, based on Cooke’s accounting of his time utilizing his schedule and the court’s docket, in the two-hour window from 1:00 p.m. until a 3:00 meeting at the jail, he billed a cumulative 4.3 hours of “actual time”; the activity billed all consisted of travel, waiting in court, and attending hearings. Similarly, on August 18, Cooke’s incourt schedule shows hearings at 9:00, 9:30, and 10:30 with the docket resuming at 1:00. The matters which were scheduled in the three-hour window from 9:00 a.m. until noon, were billed at a cumulative 6.1 hours. Additionally, matters beginning at 1:15 p.m. on that date were billed at additional 7.2 hours and consisted solely of waiting in court, reviewing “court summaries” while waiting, and attending hearings.”
  • when first called on to explain certain aspects of his billing, he said he couldn’t do so because Public Defender Services hadn’t provided him the information he needed and ” his own time-keeping system would not permit him to retrieve that information.”

As to the chilling notion that this lawyer was not as bad as others, the Executive Director testified:

I still hold firm that we were billed for duplicate—we were billed several times for the same trip, that we were billed several times from the same period of waiting in court. In other words, if he had three hearings, let’s say he waited in 17 court for one hearing while he was actually doing another hearing. That’s not properly [sic] billing. That’s billing the same period of time. So I firmly believe that that had happened, but in looking through the vouchers and everything else, it appeared to be less frequent than I had seen with other counsel. 25 The only perceived fraud or deception that still exists in my mind is the fact that he may have been value billing, that is, billing a .2 for an activity that should’ve only been a .1 or a .4 when it should’ve been a .2. However, he wasn’t billing me 3.0 for these things and he was—and he was saying 12 minutes as opposed to 240 minutes. . . . I just did not see in his case the overt deception that existed with many other attorneys. . . . He was unable to exonerate himself completely in this situation because he had failed to comply with that time requirement, but that, overall, I believe that he was zealously representing his clients and he was providing the actual services that were described even though the time allotted to them may have been—may not have been the actual time.

and he also:

gave the example of one attorney who “rubber-stamped” the same time for each day and one attorney who billed 900 hours of travel in a three-month period.

As a way of further bolstering the problem this creates for those working hard to try to get better, fairer hourly rate reimbursements in place, the Executive Director of the West Virginia program also:

explained that PDS is paying $25 million a year to court-appointed counsel that are, in his opinion, undercompensated at $45/hour for “out of court” time and $65/hour for “in court” time.14 He indicated that when requesting an hourly increase at the Legislature he was typically confronted with the fact that many attorneys were making greater than $100,000.00 a year in court-appointed work and that the legislators took a dim view of an hourly rate increase when, in their opinion, the court-appointed attorneys had given themselves a “raise” by overbilling.

Well, anyway, get back to work I guess.

Virginia’s revised lawyer advertising rules – big win for APRL’s effort to streamline the advertising rules

[In the interest of full disclosure for those who might be new here, I am presently a member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL).]

For those who aren’t new here, you know full well my personal opinion on lawyer advertising and what the ethics rules should and should not try to do in terms of regulation.

Unsurprisingly then, I was pleased to learn of Virginia’s decision to adopt new lawyer advertising rules effective July 1, 2017 and to learn that they largely do the kinds of things that APRL has been advocating should be the approach to these issues through proposed revisions to the ABA Model Rules.

You can go read the order entered by the Supreme Court of Virginia earlier this week that lays out the full text of what will now be its only rules in the 7.1 through 7.5 series, Rules 7.1 and 7.3 and accompanying Comments that will become effective July 1, 2017, but here are a few highlights:

  • Rule 7.1 will read in its entirety: “A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.  A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.”
  • Rule 7.2 has been deleted and instead any issues that it used to address are now addressed, if at all, in paragraphs of the Comment to Rule 7.1.
  • One such Comment to Rule 7.1, [2], explicitly acknowledges that the right kind of disclaimer can cure something that might otherwise be argued to be “a statement that is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead the public.”
  • Another such Comment to Rule 7.1,, [4], explicitly acknowledges that someone could be a “specialist in a particular field of law by experience,” and that such a person can communicate that specialty as long it is not done in a way that is “false or misleading.”
  • Rule 7.3 addresses all aspects of targeted solicitations and also addresses the prohibitions on providing payment or things of value to someone for a recommendation or referral.
  • As to solicitation, Rule 7.3 makes clear that it applies only to communications that are “initiated” on the lawyer’s end.  And, appears to not attempt to prohibit in-person or real-time solicitation of clients.
  • Instead, it limits its outright prohibition on solicitation to situations where the solicitation is directed to someone who has made known to the lawyer they don’t want to be solicited or when the solicitation “involves harassment, undue influence, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats or unwarranted promises of benefits.”
  • It does contain a provision requiring an “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” disclaimer on “written, recorded or electronic solicitation[s]” but not if they are addressed to the universe of folks ABA Model Rule 7.3 has traditionally excluded from the in-person/real-time ban (other lawyers, family members, prior professional relationships, etc.)
  • Rules 7.4 and 7.5 are deleted altogether.

Kudos to the Virginia State Bar, the Supreme Court of Virginia.  One state down, 49 more (plus D.C.) to go.

Ohio Opinion 2017-1: Too much and too little at the same time

An opinion worthy of discussion was issued in Ohio back in February 2017  but I didn’t stumble across it until this past week.  (A tweet by ALAS got it onto my radar screen.)

Advisory Opinion 2017-1 from the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct addresses advertisement of contingent fee arrangements and, in particular, it addresses the following question:

Whether it is proper for a lawyer who advertises to use statements such as “No fee without recovery” or “You pay no fee unless you win” or “There’s no charge unless we win your case” or “You pay us only when we win.”

The opinion focuses only on the distinction in a contingent fee arrangement between fees and repayment of advanced expenses and, as a result, offers the same answer to all of the examples – no.  Now even on the opinions own terms – focusing only on the distinction between expenses and fees, I disagree that all of those should get a “no” answer, but I also think that the Ohio opinion missed an opportunity to evaluate an even more significant question about these kind of statements that has always hit me as potentially problematic.

First, as the opinion explains all of these statements must be run through the filter of RPC 7.1 and a determination has to be made about whether they are false or misleading.  The Ohio opinion concludes that all of the variations of statements tackled are “inherently false or misleading” because they “omit reference to the client’s responsibility for expenses and costs” and thereby “impl[y] that the client will not be required to pay litigation costs, regardless of the outcome of the litigation..”

On one level, I think that goes too far in terms of a harsh result for the two of the four examined statements that plainly speak in terms of “fees.”  To say that those are inherently misleading is a conclusion with which I just disagree.

On another level though, I think this opinion doesn’t go far enough because it fails to address a more legitimate question of how such advertisements can be misleading.

In my opinion, three of the four statements have a problem but it is because of the use of “win” as the conditional event triggering payment of fees.  A client who pursues a contingent fee case and has a serious injury but ends up settling their case for a small amount, let’s pick $30,000 as a random amount, might very well not consider their lawyer to have “won” their case.  For me, the statement that ought to be the exemplar for use is the first one “No fee without recovery.”  And the second one ought to be acceptable if it were to say “You pay no fee unless we recover for you.”  Maybe each of those statements would be even better if “attorney” came before “fee” but I think that’s the path where a consumer is more likely to feel misled or deceived by such an advertisement rather than on the basis that there is an implication about expenses if a lawyer only speaks in the advertisement in terms of fees.

Dear ABA – Embrace reform of the lawyer advertising rules. Please.

I have written in the past about the APRL white papers providing the rationale for, and data supporting the need to, reform the way lawyer advertising is regulated in the United States by state bar entities.  You can read those prior posts here and here if you are so inclined.

Jayne Reardon, the Executive Director of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism, over at the 2Civility blog has posted a very thorough report on events that transpired in Miami earlier this month and that reminds folks that the deadline put together by the ABA working group looking at whether to back APRL’s proposals is March 1, 2017.

I am a proud member of APRL – actually presently I’m even fortunate enough to serve as a member of its Board of Directors – but was not able to make it down to Miami for our meeting and the ABA meetings this year.  If you are a reader of this blog, you know that my view is that the only advertising rule that ought to be necessary is a version of RPC 7.1 that states, as does the ABA Model:

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.  A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.

Period.  Full stop.

Now Jayne’s report from the ground mentions that some folks criticized or complained about APRL’s proposal because it would not apply only to advertisements by lawyers.  To me that is a feature, not a bug.  As I’ve also written and spoken about, RPC 7.1 is violated when a lawyer sends a fraudulent bill to a client saying they spent more time on something than they really did and that’s a good thing.  It also, for example, applies to lawyers who lie on their resumes as we saw with this recent instance of lawyer misconduct.

The concern expressed by someone that it could result in discipline against a lawyer politician (presumably one who would have to have lied about some aspect of their personal history I guess) does not give me much pause because if it were so applied it would likely fail First Amendment scrutiny because of the higher standards afforded to protect political speech rather than constitutional speech.

While I think RPC 7.1 ideally is the only rule that ought to exist, I recognize that people are going to insist there be some restriction on in-person solicitation so I also support APRL’s proposed approach to having an additional rule, over and above RPC 7.1, to address that.  As I’ve said before, my only quibble with APRL’s proposal on that front is as to how it defines a sophisticated user of legal services:

If I had one criticism of the APRL proposal, it is with the way it defines a sophisticated user of legal services.  The second part about regular retention of legal services for business purposes is likely where it should have stopped, as the first portion of the definition is pretty amorphous and subject to manipulation.  For example, would a recidivist offender who has gone through repeated jury trials and spent many years in prison someone who would qualify as having had significant dealings with the legal profession?  Seems like a pretty clear argument could be made that the answer would be yes.

I’m going to send this post in to the ABA working committee as my own personal comment.  If you have a viewpoint on these issues (whether it jibes with mine or not), I’d encourage you to send your thoughts as well to them at this email address: modelruleamend@americanbar.org.  (Unless you don’t think lawyer advertising rules are strict enough already.  Then I’d encourage you to stay busy doing other things.  Kidding, just kidding.  But more like Al Franken’s kidding on the square actually.)

Bad ethics opinion or the worst ethics opinion? New York State Bar Ethics Opinion 1110 edition

Again, not fair actually.  This NY ethics opinion isn’t in the running for being the worst ethics opinion and isn’t even truly bad and actually, I guess, not even wrong.  But it does point out a really bad flaw with respect to the language of the particular NY rule it applies.

What seems like an exceedingly long time ago now, I was first inspired to title a post with this “Bad or Worst” title.  I did so when I wrote about what I thought truly was a woeful ethics opinion — and one that I cannot believe anyone even asked about in the first place — in which the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct imposed some ridiculous limitations on the ability of a lawyer to communicate with attendees at a seminar or continuing legal education presentation.

The subject matter of NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1110 is similar – whether New York’s ethics rules on advertising, and derivatively solicitation, apply to a situation in which an attorney wishes to invite people to come to a seminar that he would put on regarding intellectual property issues.  As the opinion explains:

The inquirer, an intellectual property lawyer practicing in New York, plans to conduct online webinars and live seminars on topics within his principal fields of practice for persons who may have a business interest in those topics and a need for legal services.  Inquirer contemplates identifying persons fitting that description by use of commercially available business listings, including such listings on government agency web sites, such as business entity lists.  Admission to the webinars and seminars may be free or may be for a fee.

The opinion then lists a litany of questions it has to resolve to determine whether this can be done, but the core question is whether the seminars would be advertisements and, if so, whether they would be solicitations.  Now the opinion goes on at some length about ways that the lawyer could limit what is said or done at any such presentation so that it would not even qualify as an advertisement, but, eventually, it does the practical thing and assumes that the lawyer would likely during the seminar say things that would amount to talking about his “skills or reputation” sufficient to make the seminar an advertisement.

Assuming it is an advertisement, the opinion then also quickly gets to the conclusion that the seminar would be a solicitation — and that it would be an in-person solicitation, and, thus, the attendees would have to be limited to “close friends, relatives, former client(s), or existing client(s).”

This is the moment where, inside my head, there is the sound of screaming.

It is one thing to have an ethics rule that imposes strict prohibitions on in-person solicitations.  That’s fine.  It is also fine to have an ethics rule that requires, as to written solicitations, certain requirements about those.  I often disagree with the details of what states require as to disclaimers or font sizes, but I can be swayed not to get up in arms about the requirements.  It is another thing to have a rule that creates such a strict definition of solicitation to justify writing an ethics opinion that would say that someone who accepts an invitation to attend a seminar is being subjected to a solicitation at the seminar they could have just chosen not to attend.

The closest that New York’s RPC 7.3(b) gets to carving out communications that are initiated by a person who isn’t a lawyer from being a solicitation is the language that states that solicitation . . . “does not include a proposal or other writing prepared and delivered in response to a specific request of a prospective client.”

But the inanity of the outcome articulated by this ethics opinion is pretty epically demonstrated by analogy to an actual written solicitation letter to a targeted potential client.  Assume that a lawyer sends one of those, and complies with all the bells and whistles in such a written communication as to what the envelope cannot say, the font size, the disclaimers at the beginning, and mandatory language, but the recipient then decides — “hey, I’m interested in hearing what a lawyer could do for me” and proceeds to go to the lawyer’s office to ask for a meeting.  Everything that happens then is.not.a.solicitation.

The rules regarding in-person solicitation seek to protect potential consumers of legal services from overreaching by lawyers.  That is the espoused rationale.  I often, with tongue-in-cheek, will explain at seminars that such rules exist because when we graduate law school we have been imbued with superpowers as to persuasion that allow us to convince mere mortals to do things that they otherwise would never do but for our incredible superpowers.  (I can often then use the exception to the rules against solicitation for lawyer-on-lawyer solicitation to explain that since both sides have equal superpowers there is no need for the protection.)

But, in the conceptual situation evaluated by this formal ethics opinion, if the recipient of the invitation to the seminar doesn’t want to be in a room where a lawyer is speaking about the area of law in which they practice, they.can.just.not.go.to.where.the.seminar.is.happening.

What is missing from the text of New York’s rule to prevent this sort of result is the language that we have here in Tennessee in RPC 7.3(a)(3) indicating that an in-person or real-time solicitation of professional employment from a potential client is not prohibited if “the person contacted . . . has initiated a contact with the lawyer.”

Lying about everything is an awful way to go about life.

No, stop, this is not a post about politics.  Not sure why you’d think that just from the title…

It’s Groundhog Day here in the United States.  As a person of a certain age, Groundhog Day makes me think of the Bill Murray movie more than the actual parlor trick with a rodent that happens in Pennsylvania, so mining a situation that happens over and over again (unfortunately) in the world of ethics feels like low-hanging fruit.  That situation:  Lawyers losing their license over the willingness to lie.

But, today’s entry involves a lawyer on his way to being disbarred from practicing law in Michigan for conduct of an extent that (fortunately) you don’t see every day.  The conduct is level of mendacity that is difficult to imagine explainable as anything other than an actual psychological condition — someone who comes across as a pathological liar or a sufferer of narcissistic personality disorder.  Again, stop, why do you keep trying to think about politics in this post.  You should stop being so weird about this.

The lawyer in question is a gentleman named Ali Zaidi.

Now, before grabbing snippets of the Opinion issued by the State of Michigan Attorney Disciplinary Board that details the lengths and breadths of Mr. Zaidi’s false statements that cost him his license, the subject matter of some of the falsehoods gives an opportunity for a brief reminder about an aspect of the ethics rules not always spoken about or focused upon.

Michigan, like most jurisdictions, has a version of Rule 7.1 that makes it unethical for lawyers to make false statements about themselves or their services.  Lots of lawyers think of that rule – Rule 7.1 —  as applying only to advertising – because it is housed in the 7s – but it actually applies to any communications by lawyers.  An example I’ve used from time-to-time at seminars is to make the point that a lawyer who sends inflated bills to a client wouldn’t only violate RPC 1.5 but also would run afoul of RPC 7.1 because the contents of the billing statement would be a false and misleading communication about the lawyer’s services – specifically about the amount of time the lawyer spent providing those services.

With that more academic pursuit behind us, here are the snippets from the order that show the scope of the falsehoods this to-be-disbarred Michigan attorney used in bringing about his own downfall:

failing to correct his resume during his employment with one firm; submission of fraudulent resumes to a potential associate, a staffing consultant to fill a position with another attorney, and the Bank of Montreal; repeated failure to provide his correct address to the State Bar; misrepresentations in and related to respondent’s website for Great Lakes Legal Group; and misrepresentations in his answer to the Request for Investigation.

The order lays out in pretty significant the extent of the falsehoods in the various resumes which included claims to be licensed in two states where he wasn’t, claims to have worked as a summer associate at three firms where he never worked, claims to have earned an undergraduate degree from Harvard which he didn’t, and claims to have competed in an Olympics for a U.S. Field Hockey Squad of which he was never a member.  Beyond his resume claims, the lawyer also practiced law under the name of a law firm, Great Lakes Law Group, which he later admitted wasn’t really so much an actual law firm as an “idea that is still in progress.”  The panel also even threw shade on parts of the lawyer’s resume not proven in the proceedings to be false in a footnote that lists other claims in terms of education and work history about which the panel is clearly quite skeptical.

This lawyer also did his cause no favors by representing himself and parts of the order focus on things that were said during the defense of the case that were also false like his reason for not showing up for hearings.  But, he may have even done himself more damage when he was present and involved in the hearings:

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: Where do you live now?

MR. ZAIDI: I currently-my-to establish clarity on that, this has been a source of some issues and concerns, I will be in Texas. My whole goal after my tenure ended in Michigan is

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: See, it’s not a trick question. Where do you live now?

MR. ZAIDI: I have a place. It’s not a simple answer. I’m trying to explain to you and give you that answer as well. Texas was a goal, which is why I always put Texas. She mentioned my current address is in New York. And even when I called [the State Bar of Michigan] and I updated my- I let her know that Texas – that address in Addison, Texas is still the best address for me.

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: Who lives there?

MR. ZAIDI: It’s my family business. And the reason – and part of the reason – let me explain to you why­

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: So it’s not even a home? It’s a business address?

MR. ZAIDI: Yes, it’s a business address.

[PANEL MEMBER 2]: What is your family business.

MR. ZAIDI: My Dad owns some restaurants.

[PANEL MEMBER 2: So you gave the address of the restaurant in Texas?

MR. ZAIDI: No, it’s not a restaurant. It’s basically his office where he operates and there are other offices there. It’s just basically a big office building. And that’s where ­

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: When did you come to Michigan for this hearing?

MR. ZAIDI: I came this morning.

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: Where did you fly from?

MR. ZAIDI: I didn’t fly. I drove.

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: Where did you drive from?

MR. ZAIDI: I drove from Toronto.

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: What are you doing in Toronto?

MR. ZAIDI: Well, my wife lives in Toronto. And I live in Toronto for the most part, but I travel routinely to Lewiston where I’m trying to establish some business there.

[PANEL MEMBER 1]: Where’s Lewiston?

MR. ZAIDI: It’s in New York.

Not to say that having a lawyer represent him during the proceedings would have let this lawyer be spared disbarment, but not representing himself was clearly the only possible way that outcome might have been avoided.

 

The “Now You Know” ad – quite savvy or absolutely horrible?

I had been hoping I could wait a bit to write about this topic but it’s making news via the ABA Journal online today, so I’ll just plow in with this rush job of a post because I’ve already heard discussions in Tennessee about this same ad and before someone more articulate than me blogs about it before I do.

Here’s a link to the article about the Georgia dust up:.

Here, if I’ve done this correctly should be able to watch the advertisement itself at this link — “Now You Know”

For those who can’t get the video to play or who didn’t read the Georgia story above, the gist is that the advertisement explains that the fact that someone has insurance to cover liability in say an auto accident case is something that gets withheld from the jury.  (For what it is worth to those outside Tennessee, in our state insurance coverage is not even discoverable in state court although it is, of course, in federal court.)

Now, based on someone asking me about it, I thought it was already running in Tennessee, but it may only be up in Georgia at the moment.

I’m not at all prepared to weigh in on whether it presents a problem under Georgia’s advertising rules, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that it would be difficult in Tennessee to make the case that the advertisement violates any of our ethics rules.  On the first front, it is hard to point directly at any aspect of the content that would be untruthful so challenges under RPC 7.1 or similar provisions would go nowhere.  Someone might argue that the ad puts a lawyer in the position of doing something “prejudicial to the administration of justice,” in violation of RPC 8.4(d) but the natural retort to that would be, well… is it … really?  And, I suspect that the firm running the advertisement would very much like to spend time debating whether the dissemination of the information is really prejudicial to the administration of justice or not.

If there is a provision that could be fruitfully pursued, I tend to think it would be RPC 3.6(a) which prohibits lawyers from making “an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”  That rule is usually thought of as being designed to protect against publicity that would impact a particular matter, but a statement like this that would apply to all matters to some extent might just be capable of being argued to have sufficient deleterious impact to any one matter to trigger the rule.

I tend to believe that the best response to speech though is more speech, so what I’d really like to see is a defense-oriented firm cut an ad to educate the public about something like the collateral source rule.  Someone could even try to argue that RPC 3.6(c) which permits some responsive statements in order to “protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client.”

It’d be interesting to see that play out and whether  the firm strenuously defending this current advertisement would see any problems with a defense-oriented counterpoint.

 

 

 

Everything’s bigger in Texas, including rule problems sometimes.

First, no argument from me that I’ve been a bad blogger this week.  I’d offer excuses, but no one likes to hear excuses.

Second, how about some actual substantive content … I’ve written in the past about ethical issues surrounding the verein structure of some of the largest law firms in the world.  Those prior discussions involved conflicts issues stemming from treatment of the verein as one firm for purposes of the ethics rules.

Within the last few weeks the State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee issued Opinion 663 which reveals a new problem for lawyers practicing in a verein but a problem that is relatively specific to Texas given that it involves a pretty antiquated approach to law firm names — an approach that bars “trade names” altogether but that also gets very particular about whether a law firm name can have the name of someone who doesn’t actually practice law in that firm.

Texas still has in place a very persnickety rule about what law firm names, Rule 7.01 which reads:

A lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name, or a firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm, except that … if otherwise lawful a firm may use as, or continue to include in, its name the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession.

So, what particularly was the issue – and the opinion does genericize the firm names involved but you can read this TexasLawyer article if you want to know the real details — well, the issue is a law firm, previously known as Smith, Johnson wants to operate under the name of the verein it has joined – Brown, Jones, Smith — as explained by the Committee is that there has never been a lawyer at the Smith, Johnson firm named Brown or Jones.  Kind of silly, right?  They also say it is misleading because it would make people think that all the lawyers in the firms in the verein are all lawyers in the same law firm when they aren’t really.

The outcome of the opinion also raises an interesting question of larger impact which is why did the Texas committee make the assumption it made in the first place? Everything about the opinion flows from the assumption that the Committee explains to open the “Discussion” portion:

This opinion is based on the Committee’s assumption that the lawyers in the law firms that become members of an organization that includes other law firms (in this instance a verein) are not legally determined to be members of one law firm as defined in the Terminology section of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

The word “firm” in that Terminology section, by the way, defines a firm in an entirely circular fashion as being “a lawyer or lawyers in a private firm; or a lawyer or lawyers employed in the legal department of a corporation, legal services organization, or other organization, or in a unit of government.”

The opinion explains that the facts it had been provided about the verein’s role in a way that would seem to support the conclusion that it was not one firm:

The verein provides some administrative services to each of the member firms and coordinates certain activities of the firms, but it does not provide legal services to clients. The lawyers who are members of the Texas law firm and who are licensed in Texas are not partners or members of the other law firms in the verein. The lawyers in the Texas law firm do not share profits, losses, or liabilities with the lawyers in the other law firms in the verein. The lawyers in the Texas law firm have no authority or vote in the actions of the other law firms in the verein. The law firms who joined the verein are not merged as a result of joining the verein.

So, in an interesting way, this Texas opinion truly is the flipside to the disqualification ruling involving Dentons that I wrote about so long ago.  That judge decided that because Dentons held itself out to the world as one firm, it should be treated that way under the ethics rules as to conflicts.  The Texas opinion says that you can’t hold yourself out to the world as one firm because you aren’t really one.

And, if you happen to be in the Murfreesboro area today and happen to be a legal professional, you could come hear me speak about the “12 Commandments of Social Media for Legal Professionals.”

 

“En” to the . . . ah . . . to the no, no, no!

So, blame my children for the Meghan Trainor reference, but it is a catchy tune and, actually, not the worst of messages of female empowerment.  Nevertheless, it fits my ramblings today too well for me to resist.

A blurb about a trademark infringement suit involving an Atlanta law firm that operates under a trade name caught my eye this week.  You can read a Law360 story about it here, but know on the front end that the headline is incorrect and that the reason it is incorrect is the core of my not-fully-formed point.

The short form of the story is there is this Atlanta law firm that operates under a trade name of Trusted Counsel, technically Trusted Counsel Ashley LLC.  Law firm use of trade names is not universally accepted in terms of advertising regulations, of course, as there are some states that simply do not permit their use.  In Georgia, trade names can ethically be used as long as they include the name of at least one attorney in the firm (hence the “Ashley” reference) and “does not imply a connection with a government entity, with a public or charitable legal services organization or any other organization, association or institution or entity, unless there is, in fact, a connection.”   Tennessee’s version of RPC 7.5(a) is simultaneously more, and less, permissive as there is no requirement that a name of a lawyer be included but a clearer provision that no trade name can be used if it would violate RPC 7.1 (i.e. be false or misleading).

The law firm, Trusted Counsel (which interestingly is the only part of the firm name apparently that has been trademarked by Trusted Counsel Ashley) has been operating since 2003.  That firm has sued a much newer arrival to the Atlanta marketplace, Entrusted Counsel LLC, claiming trademark infringement, Lanham Act violations, and even cybersquatting.

Now the headline in the Law360 story was that a Georgia law firm had been sued, but even the actual lawsuit doesn’t go so far as to make that allegation (though clearly the plaintiff hopes you will draw that inference), instead the lawsuit (which you can read but not print off at this site on Scribd) asserts that the source of the infringement and the reason for confusion is that both Trusted Counsel and Entrusted Counsel provide “legal services.”

It took me fewer than 5 minutes of clicking around on the web to see that Entrusted Counsel is a consulting outfit owned/operated by someone who is not a lawyer.  Now, I’m admittedly not an expert in trademark law so the fact that Entrusted Counsel isn’t a law firm and can’t practice law may not mean squat with respect to the merits of the trademark suit, but it certainly is an interesting little fact given all the recent hew and cry over the ABA resurfacing — albeit briefly and to no avail — the discussion about whether the ethics rules should be revised to permit outside, nonlawyer investment in law firms.

I can’t help wondering, if the roles were reversed, what would lawyers say if a consulting shop, owned by a nonlawyer, sued a law firm that had a similar name for trademark infringement.

Speaking of advertising regulations, the other tidbit making waves and news in legal circles this week is that New Jersey has decided to weigh in, yet again, on “accolade advertising.”  Quite a few years ago, New Jersey attempted to put its arms out and hold back the tide of “superlative” or “accolade” advertising among lawyers.  The effort, as it should have been, was ultimately futile.

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Attorney Advertising issued a “Notice to the Bar,” to clarify just when, and how, lawyers in New Jersey are permitted to publicly discuss the fact that a third party has conferred upon them a rating or accolade of some sort.  What drives the regulatory impulses to seek to impose barriers on references to such ratings or accolades is, of course, the unfortunate belief that all entities that provide ratings somehow have an underhanded, “pay to play” component.  To whatever little extent anecdotal evidence can rebut such preconceived notions, I have been fortunate enough to be listed in Best Lawyers in America since 2009, to be listed as a “Super Lawyer” beginning in 2011 by MidSouth Super Lawyers, and was awarded an AV rating by Martindale Hubbell back in 2006 or so and have never paid a dime  to any of those entities to run an advertisement or even to receive a plaque acknowledging my inclusion.

Are there entities that do little by way of separating wheat from chaff other than to see if a lawyer will pay for an accolade?  Absolutely.  But, as indicated above in what it took to figure out that Entrusted Counsel doesn’t practice law, it takes about 5 minutes at most these days to go online and figure out what the score is.

You can read the entirety of the NJ guidance here if you really want to but prepare to be frustrated and to sense the begrudging nature of the whole discussion.  If you want just the short version, here is what they say a hypothetical lawyer could say in compliance with their requirements:

Jane Doe was selected to the 2016 Super Lawyers list. The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found at www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process_detail.html.  No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Or, here is how it would read if that hypothetical lawyer wanted to tweet about it:

Jane Doe was selected to the 2016 Super Lawyers list. The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection met

The “Notice to the Bar,” explains that it was issued because the committee “has received numerous grievances regarding attorney advertising of awards, honors, accolades that compare a lawyer’s services to other lawyer’s services.”

I wish the NJ committee would have just hired Ms. Trainor to answer the phones, she could have told the complaining lawyers:

You need to let it go, you need to let it go.  Need to let it go.  Nah to the ahh to the no, no, no.