California ethics opinion addresses issues related to a lawyer accepting damaging document provided by a witness

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent California ethics opinion which addresses ethics issues related to accepting a damaging document provided by an individual (witness).  The ethics opinion is Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) Ethics Opinion 531 (July 24, 2019) and is here: https://www.lacba.org/docs/default-source/ethics-opinions/archived-ethics-opinions/ethics-opinion-531.pdf

The detailed opinion sets forth the scenario when a lawyer is offered access, by a witness who is an unrepresented former employee of the opposing party, to potential documentary evidence and is advised that it will show the adverse party’s failure to comply with discovery obligations.  The opinion discusses whether the lawyer can and/or should ethically use the document and “the ethical risks and potential adverse consequences of taking possession or reviewing the material are significant” when there is “reasonable cause” to believe that the document contains protected or privileged information.

According to the opinion, the lawyer must first determine whether the individual violated the law by obtaining or possessing the materials.  If the lawyer does not have the competence to make that decision, he or she should consult with another lawyer who has knowledge of criminal law. If a law was violated and the lawyer obtains the document, he or she may be ethically required to turn over the document to the court or to the appropriate legal authorities.

The lawyer should also address whether the document or data includes material that is subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, or the attorney work-product doctrine. If it becomes “reasonably apparent” to the lawyer that the documents are privileged, the lawyer would be ethically obligated to stop reviewing the document and provide notice to the privilege holder, the owner of the work product, or their counsel.

The lawyer should also keep the client informed when receiving the evidence is a significant development or if it limits the actions that the lawyer is able to take and the lawyer may be required to inform the client about the impact of any dispute over entitlement to the evidence, including the potential financial impact, including legal costs, and potential delay.  The lawyer should also consider other issues to be reviewed and discussed with the client, which would include the possibility of the lawyer being disqualified from the case and possible sanctions that could adversely affect the client’s case.

Bottom line: This California ethics opinion provides a good overview of the ethical issues (i.e. minefields) which are present when an individual tries to provide the lawyer with an alleged “smoking gun” document and discusses what the lawyer should do to protect him or herself ethically.

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 Corsmeierabout.me/corsmeierethicsblogs
Advertisements
Posted in Attorney ethics, attorney-client privilege, Attorney/client confidentiality, Attorney/client privilege, California ethics opinion using improper document, California ethics opinion using improperly obtained document, competence, Confidential Information, Confidentiality, corsmeier, diligence, Ethics Opinions, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Florida Supreme Court approves revised Bar advertising rule with requirements for lawyers to call themselves “experts” or “specialists”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion approving (with minor revisions) Bar Rule 4-7.14, which sets forth the requirements for Florida  lawyers to call themselves “experts” and “specialists”  in advertisements and other documents.  The case is In re: Amendments to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.14., Case No. SC18-2019.  The June 27, 2019 Supreme Court of Florida opinion is here: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/527989/5865891/file/sc18-2019.pdf.  The rule revisions become effective on August 26, 2019.

As I blogged previously here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/federal-district-judge-enjoins-the-florida-bar-from-enforcing-rule-prohibiting-truthful-claims-of-expertise/, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle found in 2015 that non-certified lawyers could have the skills and experience of certified lawyers and held that the Florida Bar Rule restricting the use of “expert” and “specialist” to lawyers who were certified by The Florida Bar (or its equivalent) was unconstitutional and he enjoined the Bar from enforcing it.  The Florida Bar did not appeal.

The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors (BOG) imposed a moratorium on enforcing the rule as written and proposed rule amendments to comply with Judge Hinkle’s ruling; however, the Florida Supreme Court rejected them.  The BOG revised the proposed rule amendments and filed them in 2018.  The opinion approved the revised rule with minor revisions.

The revised Florida Bar Rule 4-7.14 states that lawyers may not claim to have specialization or expertise in an area of law unless they are certified by the Florida Bar, the American Bar Association, another Bar’s accredited plan, or “can objectively verify the claim based on the lawyer’s education, training, experience, or substantial involvement in the area of practice in which specialization or expertise is claimed.”  The Bar’s proposed draft rule stated “and substantial”; however, the court changed the “and” to “or”, which is an important revision.

In addition, a law firm may make that claim of expertise in an area of practice if it can show that at least one of its lawyers can meet those standards and if all firm lawyers cannot meet those standards, it must have a disclaimer that not all of its lawyers specialize or have expertise in that area of practice.  Revisions were also made to the rule comments stating that a lawyer who is “of counsel” to a law firm would permit the firm to claim specialization and expertise if the “of counsel” practices solely with that firm.

Bottom line: The revised Florida Bar rule has been in development since 2015 and the Supreme Court rejected a previous version of the proposed rule.  The rule will now permit lawyers to call themselves “experts” or “specialists” if they are certified by the Florida Bar, the American Bar Association, another Bar’s accredited plan if the lawyer “can objectively verify the claim based on the lawyer’s education, training, experience, or substantial involvement in the area of practice in which specialization or expertise is claimed.”

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 Corsmeierabout.me/corsmeierethicsblogs
Posted in 2013 comprehensive Florida advertising rule revisions, 2018 revised Bar Rule- Florida Lawyer use of expert and specialist, Attorney ethics, corsmeier, Florida Bar ethics, Florida Bar Rules, Florida lawyer advertising, Florida lawyer advertising expert and specialist 2019 rule 4-7.14, Florida Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court opinions, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Lawyer advertising, lawyer advertising expert and specialist, Lawyer Ethics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Florida Supreme Court permanently disbars lawyer for, inter alia, breaking into former law firm, creating parallel firm, and filing multiple improper fee liens

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Florida Supreme Court Order permanently disbarring a Florida lawyer for, inter alia, breaking into his former law firm and the firm’s storage unit, creating a parallel law firm, and filing multiple improper fee liens.  The case is The Florida Bar v. Christopher Louis Brady, Case No.: SC19-39, TFB No. 2019-10,127(12B)(HES).  The July 11, 2019 Florida Supreme Court Order is here: https://lsg.floridabar.org/dasset/DIVADM/ME/MPDisAct.nsf/DISACTVIEW/2A42CACF97608E7785258439000C41B7/$FILE/_11.PDF 

According to the referee’s report, the lawyer was employed as an associate at a law firm and was fired in July 2018 after missing hearings and for exhibiting “odd and concerning behavior.”  Almost immediately after his firing, the lawyer began holding himself out as the owner of the former law firm even though there was one sole owner.  The Report of Referee is here: https://lsg.floridabar.org/dasset/DIVADM/ME/MPDisAct.nsf/DISACTVIEW/32070D97303477DA852583DF000AB0F1/$FILE/_19.PDF.  The lawyer justified his actions by claiming that the former law firm’s failure to use periods in “PA” when created as a professional association gave him the right to create a new firm of the same name by filing as a professional association with periods, so that it read “P.A.”.

The lawyer and his twin brother were also criminally charged with burglarizing the former law firm’s office in August 2018.  A videotape of the burglary apparently showed the lawyer and his brother backing a truck up to the law firm, tying a rope from the truck to the front door and using the vehicle to rip the door open. The video also showed the lawyer and his brother removing a safe and the law firm’s computer server.  A few days later, the lawyer and his brother burglarized the law firm owner’s storage unit using keys which were taken from a safe that was stolen during the law firm burglary, according to the referee.  The lawyer also stole a firearm during the burglary.

The lawyer filed several documents on behalf of the law firm and its clients without their knowledge or authority, and filed a false confession of judgment in his own favor.  He also filed more than 100 notices of liens for fees in the law firm’s pending cases “in an attempt to grab fees from cases to which he was not entitled.”

The law firm owner obtained an injunction which barred the lawyer from harassing him or interfering with his business.  The injunction also prohibited the lawyer from contacting the firm owner, his employees, his clients or his attorney. The lawyer violated that injunction multiple times and a court order was issued holding him in contempt for violating the injunction three times.

The referee’s report cited the lawyer’s refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct as one of the multiple aggravating factors and recommended permanent disbarment.  According to the referee’s report, “(the lawyer’s failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct) is perhaps the most profoundly implicated aggravator in this case”.  The lawyer “clings to his justification for his actions with a ferocity that is quite disturbing.”

Bottom line:  This case is certainly very bizarre and the lawyer’s conduct as set forth in the report of referee is extremely disturbing.

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 Corsmeierabout.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

Posted in Attorney discipline, dishonesty, Florida Bar discipline, Lawyer criminal misconduct, Lawyer disbarment, lawyer disbarment burglary and theft, Lawyer discipline criminal misconduct, lawyer false fee liens, lawyer permanent disbarment, Lawyer sanctions disbarment, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Bar examines proposal that non-lawyers be permitted to provide legal advice and have a financial interest in law firms

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent proposals of a State Bar of California task force which would, inter alia, permit legal technicians to offer legal advice and also permit non-lawyers to have a financial interest in law firms.  The proposals were approved by the State Bar Board of Trustees on July 11, 2019.

The proposals were developed by the California Bar’s Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services.  The task force’s proposals would make sweeping changes by modifying the restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law and ethics rules that prohibit fee sharing with nonlawyers and would also permit legal technicians to provide legal advice and practice law.  The California Bar press release announcing the proposals is here: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News-Events/News-Releases/board-approves-public-comment-on-tech-task-forces-regulatory-reform-options-under-consideration.  The California Bar agenda item with the proposals is here:  http://board.calbar.ca.gov/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000024450.pdf

The proposals would permit non-lawyers to provide certain specified legal advice and services, with the appropriate regulation, and permit entities that provide legal or law-related services to be made up of lawyers, nonlawyers or a combination of the two. The regulations would differ depending upon the type of entity, and also permit lawyers to be part of a law firm in which a nonlawyer holds a financial interest.

The task force proposed two alternatives.  The first would include provisions permitting non-lawyers to provide services that assist the lawyers or law firm in providing legal services, and state that the nonlawyers have no power to direct or control the professional judgment of the lawyers. The other would permit lawyers to share fees with non-lawyers as long as the client provides written consent.

The proposals also would also permit state-approved businesses to use legal technology to deliver legal services.  Regulatory standards governing the provider and the technology would be established and client communications with such entities would be covered by attorney-client privilege/confidentiality.

According to the California Bar press release:  “The State Bar Board of Trustees on July 11 authorized a 60-day public comment period for a sweeping set of regulatory reform options for improving access to legal services, developed by the Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services (ATILS).”

“Beginning next week, the State Bar will seek written comment from consumers, legal service providers, technology experts, and lawyers as vital input for evaluating the options. The Task Force also plans to hold a public hearing to receive oral testimony. The hearing, to take place on August 10, 2019, at the State Bar’s San Francisco office, is timed to coincide with this year’s annual meeting of the American Bar Association.”

Bottom line:  These California Bar proposals have a long way to go before being potentially implemented; however, if they are eventually implemented, California will be another one of the few states which would permit legal technicians to offer legal advice and the only jurisdiction (other than the District of Columbia) to permit nonlawyers to hold a financial interest in law firms.  Stay tuned…

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 Corsmeierabout.me/corsmeierethicsblogs
Posted in 2019 California non-lawyer practice and ownership of law firms proposals, Attorney ethics, corsmeier, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, non-lawyer limited practice, Non-lawyer ownership of law firms, Non-lawyer practice of law, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Tennessee lawyer disbarred for, inter alia, false and exaggerated time entries and making false statements in court under oath

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Tennessee Supreme Court opinion disbarring a lawyer for, inter alia, giving a false statement under oath, knowingly testifying falsely in a court proceeding, and seeking an unreasonable fee  The case is Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility v. Loring Edward Justice, Case No. E2017-01334-SC-R3-BP.  The link with the July 2, 2019 SC opinion is here: https://docs.tbpr.org/justice-2254-sc-decision.pdf.

According to the opinion, the lawyer made false and exaggerated time entries when he submitted a request for more than $103,000 in legal fees for the time that he spent fighting Lowe’s Home Centers over a discovery violation.  The lawyer also claimed his paralegal’s work as his own and falsely stated that he had kept “contemporaneous records” of the time he spent in the underlying discovery dispute.  The lawyer also submitted a “grossly exaggerated” fee itemization that included work for which he was not supposed to be paid.

A federal district judge had ordered that the lawyer be paid for the time that he spent locating and deposing a store human resources manager as a sanction for the store’s failure to disclose the name in discovery.  After questions arose about Justice’s legal billings, including seventeen items described as attorney time which were identical or nearly identical to invoices submitted by the lawyer’s paralegal, the judge declined to award fees to the lawyer..  In addition, other billings in the lawyer’s fee itemization were found to be for tasks that were “completely unrelated” to the issues in the dispute.

A Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel had recommended a one-year suspension rather than a disbarment and the lawyer, and the Board of Professional Responsibility appealed.  The hearing panel’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are here:  https://docs.tbpr.org/justice-2254-hp-judgment.pdf.

A judge assigned to hear the case later modified the suspension recommendation to disbarment, stating that the lawyer’s “intentional deceit” and “total lack of remorse” required disbarment.

The lengthy Supreme Court opinion stated that the evidence “furnishes an eminently sound factual basis for the hearing panel’s decision” and the judge’s modification of the sanction to disbarment.  In a footnote, the opinion stated that some of the lawyer’s arguments were “too outlandish to dignify with discussion”, including the argument that the trial judge’s given name illustrates bias. The footnote states: “Not only is this argument without merit, it is absurd.”  The opinion disbarred the lawyer.

Bottom line:  According to the very lengthy opinion, this lawyer apparently decided to fabricate his time, make false statements, and then continue to argue and claim that the fee was appropriate throughout the proceedings.  He and his lawyers also made arguments that were “too outlandish to dignify with discussion.”

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 Corsmeierabout.me/corsmeierethicsblogs
Posted in Attorney discipline, Attorney ethics, corsmeier, deceit, dishonesty, Excessive fee, fraud, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice, Lawyer discipline false billings, Lawyer Ethics, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer fraud, Lawyer misconduct false court documents, Lawyer misconduct false statements, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions false client billings, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Ohio lawyer who passed $11.00 in cash to her jailed boyfriend faces six month stayed suspension

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent Ohio Board of Professional Conduct report which recommends that an Ohio lawyer be suspended for six (6) months for passing $11.00 in cash under the table to her incarcerated boyfriend.  The case is Cincinnati Bar Association v. Virginia Maria Riggs-Horton, Case No. 2018-1757.  The link with the report and other documents in the case is here:  http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/caseinfo/2018/1757

The lawyer was convicted of the misdemeanor of promoting (passing) contraband and was given a suspended jail sentence. She then self-reported to the Cincinnati, Ohio, and Kentucky Bar Associations.

The Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct recommended the stayed suspension after the lawyer admitted that she passed the money to her boyfriend at a Kentucky detention center in August 2017 after he asked for cash for vending machines. The detention center rules prohibited money from being provided to prisoners without first being given to guards.  The lawyer stated that she was unaware of the prohibition.

The Ohio Supreme Court initially rejected the six month stayed suspension and remanded the case for a formal hearing.  A formal hearing was held before a Board panel on April 25, 2019, which again recommended the six month stayed suspension with conditions.  According to the report, the lawyer had no prior discipline and displayed a cooperative attitude in ethics proceedings. She also had a good reputation in the community.  The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct than adopted that recommendation in its report, which was filed with the Ohio Supreme Court on June 14, 2019.

Bottom line:  This lawyer passed $11.00 to her boyfriend under the table while visiting him in the jail, which was a violation of the jail rules and constituted the illegal passing of contraband.  The lawyer was then prosecuted and plead guilty to a misdemeanor and self-reported.  This was a very unfortunate learning experience for the lawyer.

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 Corsmeierabout.me/corsmeierethicsblogs
Posted in Lawyer criminal misconduct, Lawyer discipline conviction of passing contraband to client in jail, Lawyer discipline criminal misconduct, Lawyer suspension criminal conviction passing contraband, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

ABA issues Formal Opinion 487 providing guidance regarding fee divisions in contingency cases when a lawyer is replaced

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert, which will discuss the recent American Bar Association Formal Opinion 487, which provides guidance regarding the requirements of fee divisions in contingency fee matters when the initial lawyer is replaced by a successor lawyer.  ABA Formal Opinion 487 is here:  https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/news/2019/06/FormalOpinion487.pdf

ABA Formal Opinion 487 clarifies that a lawyer, who is a successor counsel in a contingency-fee matter, must notify the client, in writing, that a portion of any fees recovered may be paid to the original counsel. The opinion addresses a common misunderstanding about which model rules apply to successor relationships in contingency fee agreements, and the duties of successor counsel.

The initial lawyer in a contingency fee matter will often assert a lien on the proceeds when the lawyer is terminated or is required to withdraw; however, if the client employs successor counsel, the client may not understand there is a continuing obligation to pay the original lawyer for the value that lawyer contributed or was entitled to under the original contract.

The opinion states that lawyers may erroneously believe that ABA Model Rule 1.5(e) (or its state equivalent) (division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm) governs this situation; however, Rule 1.5(e) only applies when there is division of fees between lawyers from different firms who aresimultaneously representing a client or maintaining responsibility for the matter, not when there is successive representation. Rule 1.5(e) specifically requires that lawyers who are simultaneously representing a client and dividing a fee in a matter either divide the fee in proportion to the services delivered or assume joint responsibility for the representation.

When a lawyer no longer represents the client and there is a successor lawyer, there is no joint responsibility since the initial lawyer has no further responsibility after the withdrawal or termination and, according to the opinion, Model Rule 1.5(b) and (c) would apply to the successor lawyer in the fee relationship with the client.

Comment 2 to 1.5 states that, “an understanding as to fees …must be established”; however, the rule provides no specific time frame in which that understanding must occur. The opinion notes that under 1.5(a), client consent must be obtained before the fee is divided, which can occur up to the time of the conclusion of the matter and prior to disbursement of any money.

The opinion states that the duty to disclose the original lawyer’s potential claim and entitlement to some portion of the recovery does not constitute an “unreasonable burden” on successor counsel since, although a client may discharge a lawyer at any time for any reason, the client may be unaware of obligations to pay both the successor lawyer and the initial lawyer.  The opinion states that the successor counsel must address and clarify any confusion and inform the client, in writing, that the original attorney may have a claim against the contingency fee.

In many jurisdictions (including Florida), the initial lawyer may or would be entitled to, at a minimum,  the quantum meruit value of the lawyer’s services and the exact recovery and division of fees may not be known until the end of the case; however, the successor lawyer still has a duty to inform the client about a potential fee split.

The opinion also observes that, in many instances, the fees paid to both attorneys will not affect the client’s recovery, since a client cannot be required to pay more than one contingency fee when switching attorneys; however, if the client’s original counsel was terminated for cause, the initial lawyer may not have any claim to fees on the recovery.

Finally, according to the opinion, if the successor lawyer is required to negotiate fees with the initial lawyer on the client’s behalf, the successor lawyer must advise the client and obtain a waiver to avoid issues with Rule 1.7 conflict of interest regarding the disbursement of the funds.  Also, if a dispute arises regarding the disbursement of the funds, the successor lawyer has the obligation under Rule 1.15(e) to retain the funds in the trust account pending resolution of the dispute (and, in many jurisdictions, including Florida, the lawyer may be required to place the disputed funds in the court registry if the dispute cannot be resolved).

Bottom line:  This ABA opinion provides clear guidance on the Model Bar rule requirements when there is division of fees after the initial lawyer withdraws or is terminated and the client hires a successor counsel in contingency matters; however, lawyers must be aware that ABA opinions provide guidance regarding the ABA Model Rules only and each lawyer must research his or her own jurisdiction’s Bar Rules before taking any action.

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 Corsmeierabout.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

Posted in ABA Formal Opinion 487 division of fees in contingency matters when lawyer is replaced, ABA Formal Opinion 487 division of fees in contingent matters when lawyer is replaced, Attorney ethics, Attorney Ethics sharing fees, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Lawyer Ethics, Lawyer fee agreements, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment