More UPL Madness From Ohio

You may recall some past discussion here of the prolonged saga of the Dinsmore lawyer who moved from one of its offices in Kentucky to its Cincinnati, Ohio office and nearly was denied comity admission in Ohio over accusations of the unauthorized practice of law.

While that story ended happily — she was ultimately determined not to have character and fitness problems after the Ohio Supreme Court decided that it was not the unauthorized practice of law for her to sit in a chair in Ohio and continue to work on Kentucky cases using her Kentucky license while awaiting bar admission in Ohio — it was unnecessarily messy for all concerned.

In the past, one of the points I have raised about bar regulators using UPL accusations as a cudgel is that it seems that many jurisdictions seek to have it both ways – arguing that you are always practicing law “in” their jurisdiction whether they have to put you there through being in a seat in the state or if they have to put you there despite the fact that your seat is in a different state.

The most recent UPL ruling out of Ohio demonstrates that Ohio apparently has this proclivity as well.

Right at the end of 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an order concluding that a lawyer, who was licensed in New York, New Jersey, and California, and his law firm, had engaged in UPL by representing debtors who lived in Ohio. The order wasn’t actually a disciplinary penalty but it essentially enjoined them from further practice in Ohio, and imposed a $2,000 civil fine.

The Panel Report which the Court adopted through its order provided detail regarding the representation:

This matter involves Respondents’ representation of an Ohio resident, Timothy Hoover . . . .  Respondents executed a Power of Attorney document on January 6, 2010, through which Mr. Hoover appointed Respondents as “his true and lawful attorney.”  On May 14, 2010, Respondents on behalf of Mr. Hoover, issued a letter to Ohio attorney Lee Peterson, who represented CitiFinancial, Inc. (“CitiFinancial”), a creditor of Mr. Hoover’s.  Respondents held themselves out in the May 14, 2010 letter as Mr. Hoover’s counsel, identifying themselves as a law firm and referring to Mr. Hoover as their “client.”  A similar letter followed on May 27, 2010.  It appears that Respondents’ outreach coincided with a suit filed by CitiFinancial against Mr. Hoover in the Licking County Municipal Court for money owed on a note, though Respondents did not make, or attempt to make, an appearance in that matter.  Regardless, the facts are undisputed (1) that CitiFinancial sued Mr. Hoover, an Ohio resident, in an Ohio court based on transaction and default that occurred in Ohio, and (2) that Respondents, without any legal counsel licensed to practice law in Ohio, contacted counsel for CitiFinancial and purported to represent Mr. Hoover in debt negotiations on that Ohio matter.

Of course, the correct response to someone laying out those “undisputed” facts in a just world would be: so what?

Neither the order nor the Panel report it adopted provide all that much in the way of detail about any of the arguments made by the lawyer to defend himself against the charges (and, in fact, it mostly reads like he didn’t.)

A review of Ohio RPC 5.5 demonstrates though that there were at least two strong arguments that should have been pursued because Ohio’s version of that rule largely tracks the ABA Model Rules.

First, assuming that the lawyer truly was not only ever going to attempt to negotiate the debt reduction without ever being willing to appear in the lawsuit, the lawyer should have been able to argue that, as long as he had no reason to think he could not ultimately be admitted pro hac in the lawsuit if negotiation was unsuccessful, (c)(2) should provide sufficient cover. That rule provides the ability on a temporary basis to provide services:

reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized;

Second, assuming that the lawyer couldn’t look to (c)(1) because they were never going to do anything beyond negotiating, the lawyer could have looked to Ohio RPC 5.5(c)(4) for approval to contend that these negotiations for the client were ones that “arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.” This would be because, as the Panel report and Order also explained, the lawyer and his firm’s “practice includes counseling and assistance to individuals regarding the reduction of consumer debt. Once retained, Respondents contact their client’s creditors and attempt to negotiate a reduction of outstanding debts.”

In a New York (out-of) state of mind…

It has been a minute or two since I’ve stumbled upon an ethics opinion that provides a quick and easy example of how to take an issue, makes it overly complex and in so doing highlight several ongoing problem areas in the regulation of the profession, but ultimately still get to the correct result as to the “yes” or “no” answer to the question addressed.

But along comes New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion No. 1160. This one seems to me to be just such an opinion so let’s chat about it briefly.

Op. 1160 exists to answer the following question:

May a lawyer admitted in New York affiliate and share legal fees with another lawyer, who, while a resident of this State, is not admitted here, with the affiliation intended solely for the purpose of obtaining clients referred by the non-admitted lawyer?

Now, because the question included the desire to share legal fees with the rainmaking lawyer who was living in but not licensed in New York, the opinion could have chosen to cut to the chase based on a relatively straightforward application of New York’s Rule 1.5(g) which largely tracks ABA Model Rule 1.5(e).

New York’s 1.5(g) only lets lawyers not in the same law firm (and to be clear the inquirer’s desire to affiliate did not apparently involve actually forming a law firm together) share legal fees if, among other bells and whistles regarding consent and the existence of a writing, the amount of the division of the fee is either proportional to the service performed or (if it is going to be disproportionate in that respect) if both lawyers assume joint responsibility for the work.

Given that the inquiry transparently admitted that the rainmaker would not be doing anything beyond landing the client and passing the client on to the New York lawyer for handling, it seems pretty clear that Rule 1.5(g) could only be satisfied if the lawyers would be assuming joint responsibility. Given the lack of a New York license for the rainmaker, that would seem an impossible state of affairs because while landing a client might not cross the line into the unauthorized practice of law in New York, agreeing to have joint responsibility for legal work performed in New York for a New York client would be harder to argue involves staying on the right side of the line. Thus, it feels like the NYSBA committee could have wrapped this one up with a bow in a 1 or 2 pages tops.

In fairness, they almost managed to do something like that when they attempted to explain the difference between this situation and an earlier opinion they issued in 2011:

We examined Rule 1.5(g) in N.Y. State 864 (2011), in which the inquirer wished to accept a referral from an out-of-state lawyer in a personal injury matter. The injury occurred in New York and the referring lawyer proposed that, in the particular matter at issue, the in-state lawyer would “handle” the matter and pay the referring lawyer a portion of any recovery. We endorsed the proposal subject to compliance with Rule 1.5(g)…. Although we have declined to delineate the precise contours of “joint responsibility” under this Rule …, we have made clear that the mere cultivation of client relationships does not qualify as “services performed” by the referring lawyer… Thus, the inquirer’s contemplated action would violate Rule 7.2(a) unless it could be said that the inquirer is ethically permitted to be affiliated with the out-of-state lawyer in the circumstances presented.

Where the committee goes awry is that last sentence which is pretty viciously circular.

It seems like it should have said: Thus, the inquirer’s contemplated action would violate Rule 7.2(a) unless it could be said that the out-of-state lawyer was willing to undertake “joint responsibility” for the matter and if doing so would not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

They did not write it that way, however. And, as a result, the rest of the pieces of the opinion exist all of which for rhetorical purposes treat the rainmaker, despite being a lawyer licensed in at least one jurisdiction, as a “non lawyer.” And much of which bears the hallmarks of heavy-handedness that often arise in ethics opinions construing restrictions on (1) the ability of lawyers to offer compensation to those who refer them work, (2) the ability of lawyers to ask for work from clients; and (3) the ability of lawyers to practice law remotely.

You can read the full opinion here.

Friday Follow Up: Ohio Gets to the Right Outcome on UPL

Almost exactly three months ago, I wrote about what I considered to be a very disturbing ruling in a lawyer admissions case in Ohio.  If you missed that post, you can read it here.

I’m pleased to write, in follow-up today, that the Ohio Supreme Court has ultimately gotten to the correct outcome – it has rejected the findings below that the applicant was engaged in UPL while working on Kentucky matters for Kentucky clients in an Ohio office while awaiting action on her application for admission in Ohio.  As a result, it has finally cleared her to be admitted to practice in Ohio after multiple years of waiting after transferring from a Kentucky office of her law firm employer to an Ohio office of that same firm.

The majority opinion does a workperson-like job at justifying that outcome by stretching the meaning of the word “temporary” to its furthest defensible point — anything that is not permanent.  But, as the fascinating-and-much-more-important-to-the-future-of-our-profession concurring opinion explains: the majority opinion did so at the cost of mostly ignoring other text of the rules – particularly the text of the relevant rule that limits when a lawyer can provide services “through an office.”

The concurring opinion deserves your attention and a full read.  It is my strong hope that the rationale and logic expressed in the concurring opinion is the rationale and logic which will be embraced moving forward by all courts and other bodies dealing with this issue.  If RPC 5.5 could be used to determine that a lawyer “working remotely” is engaged in UPL, then RPC 5.5 applied in that fashion is simply, but plainly, unconstitutional.

The core of the concurring opinion’s analysis is a strong and smart understanding of what such a rule is truly saying:

But when applied to a lawyer who is not practicing Ohio law or appearing in Ohio courts, [RPC] 5.5(b) serves no state interest. Plainly, as applied to such a lawyer, the rule does not further the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of our court system. Jones, and others like her, are not practicing in Ohio courts.

Nor does application of the rule to such lawyers serve the state’s interest in protecting the Ohio public. Jones and others in her situation are not providing services to or holding themselves out as lawyers to the Ohio public.  Jones’s conduct as a lawyer is regulated by the state of Kentucky—the state in
whose forums she appears.

The problem is that unless a specific exception applies, [RPC] 5.5(b)(1) holds one to be engaged in the “unauthorized practice of law” and subject to legal sanction therefor simply because one has established an office or a systematic and continuous presence in the state. The rule deems such a
lawyer to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law regardless of whether her practice touches on the Ohio public or Ohio courts. In an earlier age, perhaps such a rule made sense. Before the advent of the Internet, electronic communication, and the like, a lawyer who worked in Ohio was almost always
practicing Ohio law. But today that is hardly the case. Any number of lawyers, for any number of reasons, may choose to do their work from Ohio. Yet that does not give Ohio a right to prohibit their conduct.

Indeed, imagine what would happen if the rule were strictly enforced. Are we to ban lawyers from setting up a secondary office inside their homes so that they can access their files remotely simply because their homes happen to be in Ohio and their practices in another state? What about a New York attorney who maintains an Ohio vacation home on Lake Erie and is there for several months of the year? Certainly such an attorney has a continuous and systematic
presence in Ohio, but are we really going to say that she has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law because she does New York legal work at her vacation home?

I would conclude that as applied to an out-of-state attorney who is not practicing in Ohio courts or providing Ohio legal services, [RPC] 5.5(b)(1) violates Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Can’t stop, won’t stop. Now … full stop.

I’m really, truly not trying to fall into the habit of only managing one post a week.  As proof, here’s a post about a Tennessee lawyer who couldn’t/wouldn’t follow the rules.

It is a fascinating case study for at least two reasons.  One is that discipline for conflicts of interest is, all things considered, relatively rare and, yet, this lawyer’s failure to recognize and avoid a conflict of interest has now led to disbarment.  Second is that it really wasn’t the conflict of interest that got punished with disbarment it was the lawyer’s violation of another rule I’ve mentioned before: The First Rule of Holes.  “When you are in one, stop digging.”

When you violate that rule, you end up in a hole from which you cannot climb out.  That is the end of the story for Homer Cody.

Cody has now been disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court in an opinion released earlier this week.  How did he get there?  Well, here’s the short version: he took on a representation that created a conflict from day one and then, despite the imposition of escalating discipline, refused to comply with court orders saying that he had to withdraw from the representation and then kept representing the clients involved even while suspended.

The slightly longer version?  Well, here goes:

A lawsuit was filed all the way back in 2002 that sought judicial dissolution of a childcare entity and its executive director over alleged self-dealing transactions between the executive director and the entity.  In 2003, that executive director was indicted by a grand jury, and then pled guilty to, two counts of theft from the childcare entity.  Near the end of 2004, Cody entered an appearance in the civil lawsuit as an attorney representing both the childcare entity and its executive director.  Joint clients with an obvious conflict between their interests.  That case ended in a ruling that the executive director had failed in her fiduciary duties to the childcare entity and a judgment entered against her in favor of the receiver  – overseeing the entity now in dissolution – for almost $300,000.  Cody filed a notice of appeal from that ruling again as an attorney for both the entity and the executive director.  Who continued to be two clients with glaringly obvious conflicts between them.

In 2007, counsel for the receiver moved to disqualify Cody and, ultimately, in 2008, our state’s Court of Appeals, ruled that Cody was disqualified from representing either of the clients.  Cody, however, continued to undertake actions representing both clients, a contempt action was pursued, and another Court of Appeals ruling was issued emphasizing that Cody had a conflict and was to refrain from representing the entity or the executive director and sent its ruling to our Board of Professional Responsibility.  The BPR filed a petition for discipline in 2011 and that proceeding ended in a public censure being issued against Cody in March 2012.

Despite that fact, Cody (shovel in hand) continued to file pleadings in court as an attorney for both clients.  This resulted in a second disciplinary petition.  In response to that second disciplinary petition, Cody filed a RICO case in federal court, as attorney for the same two clients, claiming that pretty much everyone involved in the court proceedings against his clients were using the Tennessee judicial system “to steal, embezzle, defraud, and to carry out other illegal activities.”  The pending disciplinary case was amended to bring more charges over the representation in the new federal court case.  That disciplinary case resulted in the imposition of an 180-day suspension of Cody’s license in 2015.

I’m guessing at this point, Dear Reader, you can guess what happens next (if for no other reason than that I sort of told you a few paragraphs up in the short version).  During his 180-day suspension, Cody drafted appellate briefs for the same clients, after their RICO case had been dismissed, and had them sign and file them as if he was not involved.  That resulted in a new disciplinary proceeding and culminated in a new one-year suspension in 2016.  Thereafter, Cody prepared three more appellate briefs for those clients — including a petition for cert with the U.S. Supreme Court (!) during his one-year suspension and, in 2017, was hit with a new two-year suspension.  During the one-year suspension but before the two-year suspension began, Cody went back to the state level trial court where it all started and filed an “Open Refusal to Obey Judicial Orders,” along with one or two other filings (including a challenge to the receiver’s fees and expenses), and then, during the two-year suspension period, he filed a “Motion for Determination of Proper Venue.”

Those acts resulted in Cody being found in criminal contempt and actually sentenced to 30 days in jail earlier this year.  Those acts also brought about yet another disciplinary proceeding against him, which he defended by denying the legitimacy of the orders of the Court suspending him, and that resulted in August 2018 in an order disbarring him from the practice of law.

All in all, his saga is a remarkable story that demonstrates at least three things:

(1) you can dig a pretty deep hole over the course of 14 years;

(2) there has to have been something else going on to explain the public meltdown that this lawyer managed to have after apparently practicing for more than 25 years without receiving any public discipline; and

(3) the BPR can truly be dedicated to the concept of incremental discipline when it wants to be as it is almost as hard to believe that Cody was given 180, 1-year, and then 2-year suspensions in these circumstances before ever being disbarred as it is to believe that he kept going out and getting new shovels.

Ridiculous from up close and far away.

I have some real-world experience in trying to help lawyers already admitted in at least one jurisdiction obtain admission to practice here in Tennessee.  My state’s system now is still less than ideal but not necessarily in a way that makes it strikingly more problematic than is the case in many other states.  (In the long, long ago I wrote a bit about how it was strikingly more problematic but we obtained some important rule revisions that made things better, if not perfect.)

Part of the overall problem with this aspect of lawyer regulation is the antiquated nature of the overall process plus the increasingly-difficult-to-intellectually-justify approach that we have to the regulation of the practice of law in this nation that clings to the notion that each of the 50 states plus D.C. is entitled to make its own determinations about whether someone who is perfectly competent at practicing law in one state can manage to grasp how to practice law in their state.

The underlying premise and approach is one that institutionally leads itself easily into a protectionist and parochial approach to making admissions decisions.  There are lots of ways in which the patchwork approach that exists to these issues has been very difficult to reconcile with advancements in technology and how easy it is for a lawyer sitting on a chair, in let’s say Oregon, with an internet connection can effectively practice law in, and service clients in, California or Texas or Maine or . . . well, you get the point.

This recent Law.com story tells the tale of an associate in a Kentucky office of Dinsmore Shohl who relocated to Ohio to work in the Cincinnati office and who is now at risk of being denied admission to the Ohio Bar based on “character and fitness” issues.  The problem with her character and fitness to practice is that Ohio has concluded that she’s been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Cincinnati by continuing to represent Kentucky clients where she is licensed while waiting for a decision on her application to be admitted to practice law in Ohio.

As far as fact patterns go, this one is among the more innocuous and is one that – if you happen to practice in a firm that has offices in multiple states — you’ve probably seen happen without incident and perhaps never even contemplated could go awry for the lawyer involved:

The questions about Jones’ potential admission to the Ohio bar trace back to 2015, when the associate requested a transfer to Dinsmore’s Cincinnati office so she could start and raise a family in Ohio, according to court documents. The firm granted her request but asked Jones to first apply for admission to the Ohio bar. It also required her to continue working only on matters arising under Kentucky law while her application for admission to the Ohio bar was pending.

Following the firm’s suggestions, Jones applied in October 2015 for reciprocal admission to the Ohio state bar—a process that would allow her to avoid retaking the bar exam in Ohio. She then moved to Cincinnati and worked only on Kentucky matters. She took a maternity leave and returned to practicing Kentucky law while based in Cincinnati, according to court documents in the case.

The article also indicates that those advocating for her admission in Ohio have raised constitutional arguments that also address one of the core problems with the way admissions authorities will often take a “cake and eat it too” approach to these issues:

Jones also invoked the U.S. Constitution’s due process provisions under the 14th Amendment. In a May brief, Jones’ lawyer noted that Ohio’s bar rules would allow an Ohio lawyer to practice Ohio law even if that lawyer was physically doing the work in another place. But, Jones argued, the board’s view would prohibit an out-of-state lawyer who wanted to do some work while in Ohio.

Even merely reading about this situation is a frustrating endeavor but important to highlight because, even if the Court ultimately gets the answer right, it shows how archaic some aspects of this whole approach to these issues are.  (Not the least of which being that we are talking about a situation in which this associate has now been under this cloud and in this situation for nearly three years.)  And heaven help all the multi-state firms with Ohio offices if the Court gets the outcome wrong.

The end of Avvo Legal Services should not be the end of the discussion.

A lot of the time, saying something seemed “inevitable,” only makes sense to say when you’ve had the benefit of hindsight.  At some level, every outcome can be justified as having been inevitable when you are doing the justifying after the event has already happened.

I say that to make clear that I understand the problem with making the following assertion:  As soon as the news came out that the same company that owned Martindale Hubbell was buying Avvo, it seemed inevitable that Avvo Legal Services was on the road to being scrapped/shut down.

Further, if the mere news that a much larger, much more “conservative” company was taking over didn’t signal for you how things would shake out ( a company that also owned other significant legal marketing products that might “compete” with or be intended to compete with Avvo), the news that quickly followed — all the key people at Avvo (the founder and CEO, the General Counsel, the marketing person who was to some extent the “face” of Avvo) were cashing out and moving on — should have left no doubt that large change was coming.

This week Internet Brands, that new owner of Avvo, let the cat out of the bag in perhaps the weirdest way possible that Avvo Legal Services would be shut down.  As this ABA Journal article reports, an unauthorized practice of law committee of the North Carolina Bar had sent an inquiry letter, apparently, to continue or begin an evaluation of whether Avvo Legal Services somehow involved the unauthorized practice of law.

In response, the General Counsel of Internet Brands sent the North Carolina committee a letter advising that Avvo Legal Services was going to be shut down imminently.  That’s a weird way for the news to come out because, of all the problems that Avvo Legal Services’s business model had, unauthorized practice of law simply wasn’t one.

If you follow this space, then you are likely well-versed on what those problems were: the business-model required participating lawyers to take on all of the risk that participation would involve them in one or more violations of their state’s ethics rules, including rules against sharing fees with people who aren’t lawyers or paying someone something of a value for a referral of legal work.

The end of Avvo Legal Services, however, should not mean that the legal profession should stop efforts to determine how the ethics rules need to be revised in order to facilitate the existence of things similar to Avvo Legal Services.  Consumers who have grown accustomed to using that kind of platform to get assistance with their legal needs are just going to look around the Internet for a new option.

One of the folks behind Avvo has been promoting the existence of one such new option pretty vigorously of late.  But there are all kinds of others out there and likely new ones waiting in the wings.  Very few, if any, of them can truly be described as providing any sort of service that is likely to hurt consumers seeking legal services.  Real-world transactions have demonstrated that the kind of approach to pairing consumers in need of help with lawyers with time on their hands and a willingness to assist at a desirable price point can take place without hurting the consumers of legal services.  The fact that those business models are currently prohibited by the ethics rules simply means that slavish devotion to those prohibitions based on theoretical concerns rather than how things truly are is an untenable position for the profession to try to maintain.

I still think a big choice has to be made in our profession, and I continue to think that choice is clear.

TIKD off my list.

Some day I’m going to get tired of having pun with TIKD titles, and you’ve probably already gotten tired of me doing it, but today is not that day for me.  I was looking to find something to be able to easily write about today before scrambling out of town for some speaking engagements and meetings and Roy Simon has come through for me again.  Roy kindly pointed me this morning to the latest development in the saga down in Florida over the traffic ticket app, TIKD, and its fight with the Florida Bar.

If you are not a Law360 subscriber, you can only read part of the story at this link.  Roy was kind enough to send me the full article, so I’ll summarize the key points of the development for you and then leave you with the only potentially relevant thought I can manage today.

The story explains that the Florida Supreme Court has issued a show cause order to TIKD to require it to respond to the Florida Bar’s petition over UPL allegations and to show cause why the Florida Supreme Court should not enter an order barring its services.

The article contains a very confident sounding quote from the owner of TIKD, likely more confident than he should be under the circumstances that reads as follows:

“What a stunning waste of time and resources,” Riley said. “For nearly a year we have been asking the bar to tell us what aspects of our business they find objectionable, so we could work to address
their concerns. Rather than having a conversation, they chose this route and now have filed a vague complaint, lacking any basis in case law.”

“Nonetheless, we’re glad the issue is out of the bar’s hands, and into a realm where actual facts matter. We remain confident Tikd and its affiliated lawyers are fully in compliance with Florida law,
and are hopeful we can finally resolve this and move on,” he added.

I remain skeptical that TIKD itself is truly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, though I suspect the Florida Supreme Court may find otherwise.  I’m as confident as Mr. Riley sounds above that what they are is a referral service that violates the current version of the Florida Bar’s ethics rules and that lawyers doing business with TIKD simply cannot do so and comply with the current Florida rules.

I’ve written in the past about my thoughts in general about being open to taking hard looks at revising existing ethics rules that touch on these issues, but for now the rules say what they say.

What I’m puzzling over is this:  is there a way of describing what this traffic ticket app company does that is sufficiently analogous enough to what insurance companies do to justify its existence even under current ethics rules?

At some level, isn’t what this company is offering in the equivalent of ticket insurance without a deductible?  They select the lawyer to represent you, they pay the lawyer to represent you, and if a “judgment” goes down against you for which you are liable – a fine for violation of the traffic laws — they pay it.

If we let insurance companies do something very much like that, then what’s the difference here?

Friday follow up: This week flu by.

Apologies for the lack of content this week, been down with the flu since Monday afternoon.

Two short items by way of follow up today worth highlighting with a hope of resuming this blog’s normal, sub-par output next week.

First, word has come out that the former Florida Bar President made the subject of the disqualification motion in the TIKD litigation has now withdrawn from representing TIKD.  You can read an update about that here.

Second, in complaining a week or so ago about the scope of Tennessee’s RPC 5.5(h) prohibition on employing suspended lawyers, I made reference to the fact that the rule could arguably apply even to a lawyer serving an administrative suspension.  This month brings news of the relatively rare occurrence of a lawyer actually getting disciplined for continuing to practice while administratively suspended in Tennessee.  You can read the release from our Board of Professional Responsibility about a lawyer getting publicly censured for continuing to go into the office for 7 business days while suspended for purely administrative reasons relating to not securing the necessary CLE requirements here.  These materials don’t mention whether the lawyer actually even knew during those 7 business days of their administrative suspension.  Presumably so or the public censure, which already sounds overly harsh, would be extremely harsh.  Under RPC 5.5(h), if she were employed by other lawyers during those seven days, they could potentially face discipline as well.

Which is bananas.

And, as to flu, I think I was probably fortunate to only get the B strain.  Reports this week about the extent of things are bad on that front.

So, stay safe.

Husband can’t control his wife, gets disciplined.

Sometimes titles for posts are tough to come up with, sometimes they are far too easy.  This is one of the latter and is offered both with a spirit of tongue-in-cheek silliness and because it is a truly perfect seven-word summary of a recent disciplinary case of note.

It is, of note, at least for discussion purposes, because it appears to be: (1) the right outcome; and (2) a quintessential example of the harm that my state, Tennessee, seeks to prevent through the existence of a very specific, black-letter rule.  Despite that, I’d still like to explain why I happen to think that the Tennessee rule, in particular, is still too harsh and the wrong public policy approach.

The case comes out of Illinois and involves a public censure handed down earlier this month.  The ABA Journal online wrote an article about it a couple of days ago but here’s the pithier description of events published by the Illinois disciplinary authorities:

Mr. Niew, who was licensed in 1972, was censured. His wife, Kathleen Niew, an Illinois lawyer, was disbarred in 2013 for misappropriating $2.34 million belonging to a client who she represented in a real estate matter. After her disbarment, Mr. Niew failed to ensure that his wife no longer maintained a presence in their law office and he also failed to supervise his associate, to prevent that associate from aiding Ms. Niew in the unauthorized practice of law.

The ABA Journal piece points out a bit more detail, explaining that the wife was disbarred in November 2013 but kept coming into the law offfice she had shared with her husband multiple days a week until June 2014.  You can get the highly unfortunate details of the wife’s wrongdoing at the ABA Journal piece.  (Spoiler:  financial wrongdoing.)

The reason that the husband’s role in the wife continuing to come into the office was, itself, a disciplinary problem is that Illinois has a Supreme Court Rule, Rule 764b, that bars a lawyer who has been disbarred or suspended from the practice of law for at least six months from maintaining a presence in any office where law is practiced.  That Illinois rule also imposes a direct duty on other lawyers affiliated with the disbarred or suspended lawyer to stake steps to insure that the rule is complied with.

This kind of rule, which we also have in our ethics rules in Tennessee, is one that I and other Tennessee lawyers have described to people as a rule that means, if you’ve been disbarred or suspended, you can’t even push a broom in a law office as a way of trying to make a living.

In Tennessee, over the objections of the Tennessee Bar Association, our Supreme Court put such a prohibition housed in our rules as RPC 5.5(h).  It acts similarly to the Illinois rule by completely barring involvement in anything surrounding the practice of law for disbarred or suspended lawyers, but it is solely focused on the other lawyers involved and is actually even more harsh than the Illinois rule in two respects.

The Tennessee rule reads:

(h) A lawyer or law firm shall not employ or continue the employment of a disbarred or suspended lawyer as an attorney, legal consultant, law clerk, paralegel or in any other position of a quasi legal nature.

It is harsher than its Illinois counterpart, first, because it applies (on its face) with respect to a lawyer suspended for any period of time not just for six months or more.  Arguably even where a lawyer has been suspended for only 30 days or, possibly, even when they are subject to merely an administrative suspension.  Second, it is harsher because it is not just limited to a prohibition on being physically present in a law office but applies to any employment of such a person by a lawyer or law firm.

In Illinois, for example, the public policy objections I have to such a harsh rule might be less pointed beccause the ability to work from home or otherwise remotely be employed to perform certain tasks could be a saving grace against the otherwise absolute barrier to opportunities for lawyer rehabilitation.  But not so in Tennessee.

While the Niew Illinois case that has gotten some attention certainly appears to demonstrate the right outcome for its circumstances, I still think rules like Tennessee’s are far too harsh.  Problems posed by the classic scenarios that such rules seek to prohibit can otherwise be addressed through provisions in RPC 5.5 that make it unethical for a lawyer to assist someone else in the unauthorized practice of law.

It seems that there ought to be exceptions to such an absolute prohibition; exceptions that it would be hard for reasonable people to argue against.  One could readily construct a hypothetical involving a lawyer who gets herself suspended because of problems associated with the handling of client funds or other deficiencies in their ability to handle the business aspects of the practice of law, but who might be an incredibly gifted researcher and writer.  Seems unduly harsh to foreclose that person’s ability to continue to contribute and benefit clients of other lawyers through performing such work for other lawyers with no access to client funds or even to the clients in question while rehabilitating themselves on their deficiencies.

At present, there simply is not.  The only potential route to rehabilitiation that could be available in Tennessee, apropos if for no other reason than our being called “the Volunteer state,” is that it does look like a disbarred or suspended lawyer could take on such assignments for free.

So what does 2018 hold in store for us?

It’s a new year and, of course, for many that means a time of reflection and goal-setting and much talk of how the new year will be different from the prior year.

I will spare you much of that because you can find that all over the Internet.  I am prompted to post today (in addition to just wanting to get back on the horse after the holiday break) because there has been some news today of note that tends to demonstrate that 2018 is likely going to be a lot like 2017 in terms of what matters and must be discussed.

Today, The Florida Bar and a marketplace technology company, Legal.io, announced a partnership in order to modernize The Florida Bar’s Florida Lawyer Referral Service.  You can read the announcement here.

There are a multitude of reasons why this step in Florida could matter greatly — particularly if it is successful — because other bar associations might follow suit (if such endeavors are not already in the works).  The key seems to be whether any action like this is too late to gain traction with consumers who are already turning to other, similar for-profit endeavors.  I have little doubt that lawyers will be more comfortable with such arrangements because of the safety involved with not having to worry about ethics issues of fee sharing or improper payments for referrals if they can work through bar referral programs.  Florida is an interesting place for this to happen at this moment in time as well because one might expect this development could be raised in the TIKD antitrust litigation, for example, as more fodder for arguments of claimed collusive behavior in the marketplace for legal services by the bar.

And, along those lines (but sort of flipped 180 degrees), there was another development late last year that I haven’t mentioned but that will likely be significant for lawyers in 2018.  It is this lawsuit filed on the other coast against LegalZoom and a number of state bar associations (as well as the USPTO) that seeks $60 million in antitrust damages.  You can read a nice story about this suit filed in California federal court – and what the Plaintiff in it is really trying to accomplish — here.

In short, although the suit alleges that LegalZoom is engaged in unauthorized practice and competes in a way that is unfair to lawyers, and alleges that the USPTO, the California bar, the Texas bar, and the Arizona bar are somehow turning a blind-eye to the conduct to allow it to continue, the Plaintiff, an IP lawyer and entrepreneur named Raj V. Abhyanker, admits that what he’s really looking for is a court ruling that tells him that he, and other lawyers, can use the same business model as LegalZoom without fear of ethical ramifications.

So, you know, stay tuned.