Law firm requests Florida Supreme Court to invoke discretionary jurisdiction challenging judge’s finding that Facebook “friendship” with lawyer is not disqualifying

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert update which will discuss the recent (10/17/17) Notice that was filed with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal (and docketed with the Florida Supreme Court) seeking to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court and challenging the appeals court decision which declined to disqualify a Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge who was “friends” with opposing counsel on Facebook.  The 3rd DCA case is Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A. d/b/a Herssein Law Group and Reuven T. Herssein v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No.: 3D17-1421, Lower Tribunal No.: 2015-015825-CA-43 (Florida 3rd DCA) and the Supreme Court case number is SC17-1848.  The Notice and 3rd DCA opinion are here:  https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2017/1848/2017-1848_notice_82684_e81d.pdf and the SC docket with the filing is here: http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2017&p_casenumber=1848

As I previously blogged on 8/4/17 and 8/24/17, the 3rd DCA upheld the decision of Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko that she was not required to recuse herself from a case in which she was a Facebook” friend” of the lawyer for one of the parties.  The lawyer was also a former judge with whom she worked before he stepped down as a judge.  This decision diverges from a 4th DCA opinion as well as an opinion of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (JEAC).  The 3rd DCA opinion states:

“A random name drawn from a list of Facebook ‘friends’ probably belongs to casual friend, an acquaintance, an old classmate, a person with whom the member shares a common hobby, a ‘friend of a friend’ or even a local celebrity like a coach.  An assumption that all Facebook ‘friends’ rise to the level of a close relationship that warrants disqualification simply does not reflect the current nature of this type of electronic social networking.”

The Herssein law firm then moved to disqualify the judge from presiding over a contract dispute against their client, the United States Automobile Association (USAA) in which Reyes represents a non-party USAA employee in the matter, who was identified as a potential witness/party.  The law firm argued that the judge could not be impartial in the case and cited JEAC Op. 2009-20 (Nov.17, 2009).  That opinion states: “Listing lawyers who may appear before the judge as ‘friends’ on a judge’s social networking page reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer ‘friends’ are in a special position to influence the judge.”  In 2012, the 4th DCA relied on the JEAC opinion in disqualifying a judge from a case for being Facebook friends with the criminal prosecutor. Domville v. State, 103 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

The 3rd DCA opinion states that Facebook friendships could represent a close relationship that would require disqualification, however, many do not.  The opinion concluded:

“In fairness to the Fourth District’s decision in Domville and the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee’s 2009 opinion, electronic social media is evolving at an exponential rate. Acceptance as a Facebook “friend” may well once have given the impression of close friendship and affiliation. Currently, however, the degree of intimacy among Facebook “friends” varies greatly. The designation of a person as a “friend” on Facebook does not differentiate between a close friend and a distant acquaintance. Because a “friend” on a social networking website is not necessarily a friend in the traditional sense of the word, we hold that the mere fact that a judge is a Facebook “friend” with a lawyer for a potential party or witness, without more, does not provide a basis for a well-grounded fear that the judge cannot be impartial or that the judge is under the influence of the Facebook “friend.” On this point we respectfully acknowledge we are in conflict with the opinion of our sister court in Domville.”

The Herssein law firm has filed a Notice with the 3rd DCA (which was received and docketed with the Florida Supreme Court on 10/17/17) asking the Florida Supreme Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision under Article V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const., and Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv). In support of the request, the Notice states:  “The decision expressly and directly affects a class of constitutional or state officers; all V judges in Florida, and the decision expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of another district court of appeal on the same question of law.”

Bottom line:  As I said in my previous blogs, the 3rd DCA opinion is contrary to the 2009 JEAC opinion and the 2012 4th  DCA opinion and acknowledges that it is in conflict with that opinion; however, it does provide the rationale that each case should be decided  by examining the facts and the relationship.  This would seem to open up potential confusion and potential disqualification motions that would have to be decided on a case by case basis.  This Notice seeks to have the Florida Supreme Court invoke its discretionary jurisdiction review and reverse the 3rd DCA’s decision.

It is still strongly recommended that judges and lawyers who may appear before them would be well advised not to be “friends” or otherwise connect on social media and professional networking sites or, if they are already connected and a case is assigned, to immediately remove the connection, disclose it to all parties, and (the judge may) possibly provide an option to recuse if the party believes that it could be potentially prejudiced.

Stay tuned…and 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

Advertisements
Posted in Attorney ethics, corsmeier, Florida Bar ethics, Florida Judge ethics, Florida Judicial Canons, Florida Supreme Court, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Judge disqualification, Judge disqualification Facebook friends with lawyer, Judicial Ethics Facebook and LinkedIn, Lawyer ethics Facebook, Lawyers and social media, Motion to Disqualify Facebook friends, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Proposed Bar rule initiated by Florida lawyer would make court finding of frivolousness “conclusive determination” of rule violation

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the Petition initiated by a Florida lawyer to amend the Bar rules and provide that a court determination that an action violates F.S. §57.105, Florida appellate Rule 9.410, or Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “constitutes a conclusive determination of guilt of misconduct by the lawyer(s) who prosecuted such frivolous claim or defense for violation of Rule 4-3.1.”  The Florida Bar published a Notice in the Florida Bar News that the petition will be filed on November 6, 2017 and members may comment on the Petition after it is filed.  The Bar Notice is here: 10-1-17 Bar News Notice of Filing Petition to Amend Rule.

The proposed rule revision would amend Florida Bar Rule 3-4.3 (misconduct or minor misconduct), by adding a section on frivolous actions which would provide if any Florida or federal appellate court has determined that a court action violated F.S. §57.105, Florida appellate Rule 9.410, or Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that “constitutes a conclusive determination of guilt of misconduct by the lawyer(s) who prosecuted such frivolous claim or defense for violation of Rule 4-3.1.”  Upon being notified of the finding, The Florida Bar would open a file, which would be sent to the grievance committee for review.

The proposed rule also provides that, unless there are aggravating circumstances, the referee or grievance committee considering the complaint can resolve the matter with an admonishment or referral of the lawyer to the Bar’s diversion program (lawyers would be eligible for diversion once every five years under the proposed rule).

The proposed rule would also require a lawyer who has had an appellate ruling that the a lawyer has violated the rules or state law on frivolous actions to notify the Bar within 10 days with copies to opposing counsel. Bar counsel would then docket the case “and The Florida Bar shall prosecute the misconduct in accordance with the rules considering the conclusive determination of a violation of Rule 4-3.1.”

The proposal would also amend the comment to Rule 4-3.1 to refer to the amendment to Rule 3-4.3. The comment to Rule 3-4.3 also provides that, “A lawyer shall not use any funds held in his trust account for payment of any personal obligation imposed upon the lawyer or the lawyer’s law firm as to sanctions pursuant to Section 57.105, Fla. Stats., Rule 9.410 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other similar statute or rule.”

The Florida Bar Rules allow members to directly propose amendments to Bar rules if the there is a petition filed with the Supreme Court signed by 50 Bar members.  This petition was signed by 55 Bar members.  The Board of Governors’ Disciplinary Procedure Committee (DPC) will review the proposed petition and rule amendments and will have a special meeting to discuss it.  A report by the DPC on the petition is expected at the Dec. 8, 2017 BOG meeting.

Bottom line:  This is rare member initiated petition to amend the Florida Bar Rules.  The amendment certainly appears to be well intended; however, since an order finding that a claim or defense is frivolous does not involve a criminal conviction, I am very concerned that the proposed rule that would make an order finding a frivolous filing by an appellate court on a civil matter “a conclusive determination of guilt of misconduct by the lawyer(s) who prosecuted such frivolous claim or defense for violation of Rule 4-3.1.”  I believe (and continue to believe) that a lawyer should be able to challenge such a court order since, among other things, the action and parties are different and the evidentiary requirements underlying such an order are not necessarily the same as those required for the Bar to prove a violation of the Bar rules.  In addition, the courts have inherent authority to sanction lawyers for frivolous filings as well as under the relevant statutes and court rules.

According to the Bar’s October 1, 2017 Notice in the Florida Bar News:

“Members who desire to comment on this proposed amendment may do so within 30 days of the filing of the above-referenced petition. Comments must be filed directly with the clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, and a copy must be served on the executive director of The Florida Bar and Thomas O. Wells, Esq. Rule 1-12.1 and Rule 3-7.15 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar govern these proceedings.”

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Posted in Attorney discipline, Attorney ethics, Florida Bar discipline, Florida Bar ethics, Florida Bar Rules, Florida Bar Rules diversion, Florida Bar Rules Reporting Misconduct, Florida Bar- proposed rule would make finding of frivolous filing "conclusive determination" of Bar rule violation, Florida Lawyer Professionalsim, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Lawyer Ethics, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sanctions frivolous filing, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Louisiana lawyer suspended for submitting false billable hours because he believed his partnership status required them

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion suspending a lawyer for 30 months with all but one (1) year deferred for false billable hours that he believed were necessary to maintain his partnership position and “in an effort to make himself look better on paper each month.”   The disciplinary case is:  In re: Kenneth Todd Wallace, Case No. 2017-B-0525.  The disciplinary opinion is dated September 22, 2017 and is here:  http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17B0525.OPN.pdf

According to the opinion, the lawyer “joined the law firm of Liskow & Lewis as an associate attorney in 1998. After his promotion to shareholder in 2005, he served as the firm’s hiring partner and head of recruiting. He also chaired the firm’s diversity committee as the firm’s first minority recruiting and retention partner. In 2012, respondent was elected to the firm’s board of directors and served as the board’s junior director through April 2015.”

The lawyer stated that he made the false billing entries because he was concerned that his correct billable hours (along with an insufficient number of clients) were not adequate for a partner with his status.  “When his practice began to decline, (the lawyer) gave in to his own internal pressures and began to submit false time on a dismissed contingency fee matter, and eventually other matters, in an effort to make himself look better on paper each month.”

After the law firm became aware of his false billing in some client matters, the lawyer assisted the firm in conducting a full investigation.  The firm’s investigation showed that, between 2012 through 2015, the lawyer submitted 428 billing entries that the firm believed were “certainly false” and another 220 entries that the firm believed could be false or inflated; however, the law firm concluded that none of the false billing entries adversely affected any of the firm’s clients.

The lawyer had received $85,000.00 in merit bonuses between 2012 through 2015 and the firm concluded he would have received some or all of the bonuses even if he had not inflated his billable hours. The lawyer had also spent significant time with his firm management and committee responsibilities and had also met or exceeded billable targets during the years in question.  The lawyer resigned from the firm in 2015 and gave up his available bonus.

The disciplinary opinion imposed a 30 month suspension with all but one-year deferred.  The suspension was also made retroactive to January 2016, when the lawyer had been suspended on an interim basis pending the outcome of the matter.

Bottom line:  This is a very clear and unfortunate example of a lawyer who most likely destroyed his legal career after succumbing to the stress and pressure of a law partner’s need for large billable hours and a large number of clients (book of business).  I would imagine that, if asked, this lawyer would tell you that it was not worth it.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Posted in Attorney discipline, Attorney ethics, corsmeier, deceit, dishonesty, fraud, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Lawyer discipline false billings, Lawyer Ethics, Lawyer fraud, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sanctions false client billings, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nebraska ethics opinion finds lawyers can accept payment in digital virtual currency such as Bitcoin

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Nebraska Ethics Opinion which found that lawyers may accept fees and payments in a digital virtual currency such as Bitcoin.  The ethics opinion is Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers 17-03 (September 11, 2017) and is here:  https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/ethics-opinions/Lawyer/17-03.pdf

This ethics opinion is the first to address this topic and notes a growing number of law firms in other jurisdictions accept payments in Bitcoin, a virtual digital currency with volatile prices.  As an example of the volatility, in 2013, the price of a single Bitcoin fluctuated from about $7.00 to $1,200.00.

The opinion states that lawyers who accept payment in digital currency should notify the client that the payment will be immediately converted to U.S. dollars, make the conversion through a payment processor, and credit the client’s account at the time of payment.  The opinion states that immediate conversion to dollars reduces the risk of volatility and potential excessive fees for legal services (or a reduction of the amount of payment because of a reduction on the value of the Bitcoin).

The opinion also states that lawyers who accept virtual currency must be careful to make sure that the “property” that they accept as payment “is not contraband, does not reveal client secrets, and is not used in a money-laundering or tax avoidance scheme; because convertible virtual currencies can be associated with such mischief.”

According to the opinion, Bitcoin cannot be deposited into a client trust account unless it is converted to U.S. dollars and, if the Bitcoin payment is intended to be used to pay future fees, the lawyer must immediately convert it to U.S. dollars before the funds are deposited into the trust account.

If the lawyer wishes to hold the Bitcoin funds in trust without immediate conversion to U.S. dollars, the lawyer must advise the client that the currency will not be converted to U.S. dollars, the currency must be held separate from the lawyer’s property, and the currency must be properly safeguarded. The opinion notes that there is no bank or FDIC insurance to reimburse a client for hacked Bitcoin and lawyers should take the proper precautions such as encryption or the use of more than one private key for access.

Bottom line:  This opinion is the first to address ethics issues when lawyers accept surrounding digital/virtual currencies as payment for fees.  For an excellent analysis of the Nebraska opinion and the potential pitfalls of lawyers’ acceptance of digital currency, especially to hold in trust, you should read Florida lawyer Christopher Hopkins’ recent blog titled “A Lot of Lawyers Claim That They Accept Bitcoin…But Are They Doing It Wrong?”, which is here: https://internetlawcommentary.com/2017/09/21/nebraska-ethics-opinion-for-lawyers-about-bitcoin-virtual-currency-payments-and-escrow/

Be careful out there in this digital age…

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Posted in Attorney ethics, Confidential Information, Confidentiality, corsmeier, Ethics opinion lawyers accepting bitcoin digital virtual currency, Excessive fee, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Lawyer escrow accounts, Lawyer Ethics, Lawyer ethics opinions, Lawyer IOTA trust accounts, Lawyer trust accounts, lawyer unreasonable fee, Lawyers accepting bitcoin digital virtual currency, Lawyers and bitcoin, Lawyers and virtual digital currency, Nebraska ethics opinion lawyers accepting bitcoin, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent opinion of a federal district judge in North Carolina dismissing a non-profit corporation’s claims that the state’s UPL statute is unconstitutional.  The case is: Capital Associated Industries Inc. v. Josh Stein et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00083 (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina).  The September 19, 2017 order and opinion is here: http://www.abajournal.com/images/main_images/NCBar.pdf

A corporation called Capital Associated Industries Inc. (CAI) filed the lawsuit after the North Carolina State Bar issued a proposed ethics opinion which found that CAI’s plan to provide legal services would constitute unlawful UPL.

According to the order and opinion of U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs, CAI is a non-profit (and non-legal) corporation which provides human resources services to members, who pay annual dues. The corporation proposed to provide employment-related legal advice through its own lawyers as part of its membership services. It also proposed charging a separate fee of $195.00 an hour for other legal services, including drafting employment agreements and potential representation before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

CAI argued that North Carolina’s UPL Statutes, as applied to them, “violate CAI’s right to substantive due process because the statutes are not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest.  The State Bar responds that the NC UPL Statutes “are rationally related to North Carolina’s interest in avoiding potential ‘conflicts of interest and loyalty,’ as well as its interest in avoiding the ‘impairment of attorney independence.’”

The order and opinion held that the statute was sufficiently related to the government’s interest in avoiding potential conflicts of interest and loyalty, and in avoiding the impairment of attorney independence.  “North Carolina could rationally decide that nonlawyers would be more likely than lawyers to encourage the attorneys whom they supervise to violate the ethical canons that govern the legal profession.”

CAI also argued that the UPL Statutes “violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, as applied to its proposed provision of legal services.  Specifically, CAI argues that the UPL Statutes restrict CAI’s speech on the basis of its content; that the UPL Statutes prohibit CAI from speaking on the basis of its corporate identity; and that this restriction on its speech cannot survive strict scrutiny.  The State Bar argues that the UPL Statutes operate as permissible regulation of a profession and not a restriction on speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection.”

The order and opinion stated that the UPL statute is not subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny since CAI’s proposed communications with members on employee legal questions are professional speech.  “The Fourth Circuit has held that under the professional speech doctrine, ‘a state’s regulation of a profession raises no First Amendment problem where it amounts to ‘generally applicable licensing provisions’ affecting those who practice the profession.’”  Pursuant to same, CAI “has no First Amendment right to advertise legal services since its right to provide such services is unlawful under the (UPL) statutes.”   According to media reports, CAI’s attorney has stated that the organization will appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bottom line:  This opinion appears to strengthen the regulation of UPL by state Bars such as the North Carolina Bar.  The opinion also analyzes the constitutional scrutiny that applies in cases involving the regulation of professional speech “where it amounts to ‘generally applicable licensing provisions’ affecting those who practice the profession.”

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

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

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

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

 

 

Posted in joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, North Caroline federal opinion on regulation of UPL, Uncategorized, UPL, unauthorized practice of law, unlicensed practice of law, U.S. Constitution professional speech | Leave a comment

Virginia lawyer previously suspended after disrupting CLE seminar suspended for 5 years on new candor violations

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent 5 year suspension of a Virginia lawyer who was previously suspended for 6 months in 2015 for disrupting a CLE seminar and suspended for 3 years in 2016 when he failed to undergo treatment required pursuant to the 2015 suspension.  The 6 month suspension Order dated March 27, 2015 is here: http://www.vsb.org/docs/Hartke-050615.pdf and the 3 year suspension Order dated October 27, 2016 is here: http://www.vsb.org/docs/Hartke-110416.pdf.

According to the Virginia State Bar website, “on August 25, 2017, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspended Wayne Richard Hartke’s license to practice law for five years effective October 27, 2019, for violating professional rules that govern candor toward the tribunal.  The suspension will be consecutive to a three-year suspension issued on October 27, 2016.”

According to the March 27, 2015 Disciplinary Board Order, the lawyer was intoxicated and disruptive at a Continuing Legal Education program.  Witnesses at the CLE seminar said that the lawyer was sleeping and loudly snoring during the morning session and then yelling at the video screen during the afternoon session.  A witness also said he smelled of alcohol and had a bottle of liquor with him at the seminar.  The lawyer was led from the seminar room by another person attending the seminar.

The lawyer was suspended for six months for that CLE disruption and for “failing to correct misrepresentations that he made to the Virginia State Bar during the disciplinary proceedings”.  The Order also required him to enroll in a two-year treatment and monitoring program stated that any notice of noncompliance would result in an order to show why his license should not be suspended for an additional three years.  According to the October 27, 2016 disciplinary Order, the lawyer failed to comply with the terms of the 2015 Order.  He also failed to show up for the disciplinary hearing.  The Disciplinary Board found that the violation was proven and suspended the lawyer for three (3) years, effective October 27, 2016.

The lawyer had previously been reprimanded in 2010 after settling a legal malpractice lawsuit which alleged that he failed to protect the interests of the members of the board of directors of a corporate client.  He was reprimanded again in 2011 when he was held in contempt and served 10-day jail sentence after his blood alcohol content was found to be .127 during a court appearance.

Bottom line:  According to the facts set forth in the disciplinary Orders, this lawyer has some serious and ongoing issues with both alcohol and candor.  The ultimate result was a 5 year suspension effective October 27, 2019 after he completes his current 3 year suspension and, unless that suspension is modified, it will continue until October 27, 2024.

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

Posted in Attorney discipline, Attorney ethics, corsmeier, deceit, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, joseph corsmeier, Lawyer Ethics, Lawyer false statements, Lawyer misrepresentation, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer sanctions alcohol/substance abuse, Lawyer sanctions personal misconduct, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment