04 Monday Sep 2017
Posted in Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Litigation, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Wrongful Death
≈ Comments Off on An Analysis of the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Wrongful Death Case Filed for Late Spouse Not Null and Void as Unauthorized Practice, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)
A man’s wife dies in a hospital due to complications after surgery. He sues the hospital and other defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit. You can represent yourself in court without a lawyer, but can you represent someone else without a lawyer? No, you can’t. It’s called the unauthorized practice of law. So, how did he do it? -CCE
13 Wednesday Jul 2016
Posted in Malpractice, Rules of Professional Responsibility
≈ Comments Off on Canada Revokes Paralegal’s License.
Tags
Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Legal Ethics, Legal Profession Prof Blog, Legal Techicians, Mike Frisch, Paralegals, William P. Statsky
Paralegal License Revoked, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)
There has been increasing discussion in the United States about creating class of paralegal often called “legal technicians.” Some states already have them. There are arguments pro and con on both sides. The underlying idea is to find a way to provide legal services at a lower rate making legal services more affordable.
But here’s the sticker. There are rules and laws to address situations where lawyers commit malpractice. Are there similar provisions for legal technicians and, if so, what are they? How do they protect consumers, is there any kind if discipline, and who is responsible for that oversight and discipline?
Canada might be good example to help answer some of these questions. What do you think? -CCE
Unlike its American counterparts, the Law Society of Upper Canada has and exercises disciplinary authority over paralegals,
The Law Society Tribunal revoked a paralegal’s license.
‘[M]r. Djukic’s actions clearly brought discredit upon the paralegal profession. Through his work as an immigration consultant and his standing as a paralegal, Mr. Djukic was able to meet and, ultimately, to persuade members of two families to provide him with monies totaling more than $900,000.’
31 Thursday Mar 2016
Posted in Attorney Discipline, Bankruptcy Court Rules, Bankruptcy Law, Diligence, Legal Ethics, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Sanctions, Technology
≈ Comments Off on The Oklahoma Supreme Court Sanctions Attorney for Computer Illiteracy.
Tags
Attorney Discipline, Bankruptcy Court, Computer LIteracy, Legal Profession Blog, Mike Frisch, Oklahoma, William P. Statsky
Oklahoma Accepts Computer Illiteracy As Mitigation: Censure Imposed, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky!)
No doubt you have seen posts here and elsewhere that discuss whether computer competency is now required due diligence for attorneys. The Oklahoma Supreme Court bench-slammed an older attorney for his lack of computer literacy. But, before you make up your mind, read the dissent. -CCE
29 Tuesday Sep 2015
Posted in Attorney Discipline, Ethics Opinions, Legal Ethics, Rules of Professional Responsibility
≈ Comments Off on Proposed New York State Bar Discipline Reforms With A Focus on Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Reforms Proposed For New York Bar Disciplinary System, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Blog
A comprehensive series of reform proposals have been set forth in a recent report evaluating the New York State bar disciplinary system by the Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline.
Two proposals strike me as particularly important and, in my view, should be adopted throughout these United States . . . .
06 Monday Apr 2015
Posted in Attorney Discipline, Legal Ethics, Rules of Professional Responsibility
≈ Comments Off on Attorney Refusing Mental Health Eval Is Suspended By Florida Bar Association.
Tags
Attorney Discipline, Florida Bar Association, Legal Ethics, Legal Profession Prof, Mental Health Evalution, Mike Frisch
Attorney Suspended For Refusing Mental Health Evaluation, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof
Janice L. Jennings, P.O. Box 103, West Palm Beach, suspended for 91 days, effective immediately, and indefinitely thereafter, until she complies with the terms and conditions set forth in a Feb. 19 court order and demonstrates rehabilitation. (Admitted to practice: 1985) Jennings refused The Florida Bar’s request that she schedule a mental health evaluation with Florida Lawyers Assistance. The request came after the Bar learned of a written filing and statements in which Jennings advised the court, among other things, that her former employer had caused the implantation of a microchip in her left ear that was designed to harm and disrupt her ability to function. (Case No. SC14-1218)
The Tampa Bay Times reported on the situation in June 2014
A June 16 Times article showed that she had been telling federal judges for more than a decade that she was the victim of mind control and torture, with no apparent effect on her license to practice law….
19 Monday Jan 2015
Posted in Attorney Discipline, Ethics Opinions, Legal Ethics
Tags
Drunk Driving, Lawyer Discipline, Legal Ethics, Legal Ethics Opinions, Legal Profession Blog, Mike Frisch
A Not-So-Golden Oldie, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof, Legal Profession Blog
The most overdue District of Columbia hearing committee report (perhaps ever) has finally been filed.
Attorney Wayne R. Rohde was convicted of felony hit and run in Virginia way back in 2005.
After a night of heavy drinking at a D.C. bar called Rumors, he drove home to Virginia. En route, he caused a head on collision that seriously injured a woman, backed his car away from the collision and drove home.
His effort to avoid detection failed in part because he had left his car bumper (with license plate affixed) at the scene.
He managed to convince the Court of Appeals to not suspend him pending the disciplinary proceedings, a departure from the court’s usual (indeed, nearly invariable) practice for felony convictions.
The hearing was competed on January 15, 2008.
The report was filed last Friday – seven years and a day after.
And it stinks.
06 Saturday Dec 2014
Posted in Ethics Opinions, Legal Ethics, Malpractice, Probate, Probate and Trusts, Rules of Professional Responsibility, Trusts, Wills
≈ Comments Off on Attorney Disbarred For Mishandling Administration of Mother’s Estate.
Tags
Disbarred Attorneys, Discovery, Ethical Misconduct, Frivolous Motions, Legal Profession Prof Blog, Mike Frisch, Probate, Sanctions
Brother Can You Spare A Disbarment? by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof Blog
The Washington State Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney for misconduct in connection with the administration of his mother’s estate.
The attorney was appointed as personal representative on his mother’s death in 1995. He lived with her at the time of her death and had his law office in her home.
The estate was to be equally divided between him and his three brothers.
The court affirmed findings that the attorney had engaged in frivolous motions and appeals, ignored discovery obligations and mis-valued estate assets.
In this case, the hearing officer reasonably concluded from the evidence presented at the hearing that Jones filed frivolous motions and appeals that harmed his brothers and the administration of justice. Jones filed numerous motions and appeals in the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and this court. Each motion was denied, and sanctions were awarded against Jones. Because Jones received sanctions, the hearing officer reasonably concluded that Jones was put on notice of the frivolous nature of his motions before refiling and appealing them. Like in Sanai, the hearing officer did not rely solely on a particular judicial ruling, but rather used judicial decisions as evidence that Jones filed repetitive frivolous motions that resulted in sanctions. The hearing officer’s conclusions were additionally supported by the testimony of six witnesses, resulting in over 1,500 pages of transcripts, as well as nearly 200 exhibits.
The court found seven aggravating factors including refusal to acknowledge the ethical violations
Jones argues that the record does not support refusal to acknowledge because he is not required to agree with the charges made or to confess. However, the aggravating factor of refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct was correctly applied. Jones continued to file motions, lawsuits, and appeals even after being sanctioned numerous times for the frivolous nature of such filings. By receiving sanctions, Jones was aware of his RPC violations but persisted with his conduct.
05 Sunday Oct 2014
Posted in Attorney Discipline, Legal Ethics, Probate and Trusts
≈ Comments Off on Five-Month Suspension Appropriate for Serious and Deliberate Ethical Misconduct?
Tags
Bar Discipline, Ethical Misconduct, Fraud, Legal Ethics, Legal Profession Blog, Mike Frisch, Probate, Suspension
Suspension Proposed For Failure To Correct False Client Affidavit, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Blog
An attorney who failed to correct his client’s false affidavit claiming sole heirship in an estate matter should be suspended for five months, according to a report and recommendation of the Illinois Review Board.
Following the death of James Volgar (‘James’) in 2008, Respondent agreed to represent James’ brother, Paul Volgar (‘Paul’), regarding the administration of his brother’s estate. Paul was angry that Margaret Madonis (‘Margaret’), a great-niece who had cared for James during his life, was named as a joint tenant on one of James’ bank accounts. After James’ death, Margaret received about $400,000. Paul wanted this money. Paul told Respondent that he was James’ only heir. Based upon the information he received from Paul, Respondent drafted and filed in Will County an affidavit of heirship and letters of administration stating that Paul was the only surviving heir. The probate court then appointed Paul as administrator of the estate.
In early 2009, Respondent learned that Paul had lied to him and that James had additional heirs. However, Respondent took no steps over the following seventeen months to correct the false affidavit he had filed with the court or to file an amended affidavit of heirship. At hearing, Respondent asserted he failed to amend the affidavit of heirship because he simply forgot about it and forgot about the existence of other heirs. He testified he was more focused on the issue as to whether Paul could obtain the money received by Margaret. The Hearing Board rejected Respondent’s testimony, finding it incredible, and noting that 1) Respondent discussed the existence of additional heirs with various individuals; 2) he conducted research regarding distribution law; and 3) he formulated a potential argument to limit the share of the other heirs. Accordingly, the Hearing Board found that Respondent knowingly failed to correct the false statement in the affidavit. Respondent does not challenge this finding.
Following Paul’s appointment as administrator of the estate, Respondent used the false information regarding heirship to obtain information from financial institutions in an attempt to support Paul’s claims against Margaret. Respondent also sold James’ home in 2009 without notification to the other heirs. Respondent’s mother-in-law was the listing real estate agent and Respondent was the title agent. Respondent took over $9,000 in attorney’s fees from the sale proceeds, most of which was for fees Paul owed him to pursue the claim against Margaret.
In addition, Respondent repeated the false statement that Paul was an only heir in subsequent statements to the court, including in a motion for waiver of a surety bond filed in December 2009. . . .
28 Sunday Sep 2014
Posted in Ethics, Independent Paralegals, Lawyer Supervision, Paralegals/Legal Assistants, Unauthorized Practice of Law
≈ Comments Off on Oops – Non-Lawyers and the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Tags
Ethics, Legal Advice, Legal Assistants, Legal Profession Prof, Mike Frisch, Non-Lawyers, Paralegals, STAND and Deliver Legal Services, Unauthorized Practice of Law
STAND And Deliver Legal Services, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof Blog
There are certain things that paralegals, legal assistants, and any other non-lawyer legal professional cannot do.
That brings us to this post. No doubt that the non-lawyer in this example had good intentions, and was trying to help. If you the non-lawyer in any situation, regardless of how much training or initials you have behind your name, you CANNOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE.-CCE
Unauthorized practice decision of the Ohio Supreme Court is described by Kathleen Maloney:
A Lorain County non-lawyer and his corporation engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by providing legal advice to individuals facing criminal charges, according to an Ohio Supreme Court decision today.
The court directed King Ayettey Zubaidah and STAND, Inc., to stop practicing law and ordered them to pay a civil penalty of $20,000 for their involvement in four legal matters.
Zubaidah formed STAND (Striving Towards a New Day!) in 2008 after his experience with the justice system in the 1980s when he was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to five years probation. STAND’s mission was ‘to help change the unfair and partial treatment against minorities in the judicial system.’
In each of the four cases brought before the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), the defendant or a parent of the defendant asked for Zubaidah’s guidance during the criminal case and signed an agreement with STAND, which stated that the organization would assist them. No payment was required. Family members testified that Zubaidah did not claim to be an attorney and they knew he was not one.
In one matter, Isaiah Harris faced several charges in three different cases in 2008 involving the same victim. The court appointed a lawyer to represent him. Harris also signed an agreement with STAND.
The three cases were combined, and before Harris’ trial Zubaidah sent a letter to the judge indicating he had in-depth knowledge about the facts in the case and defending Harris’ actions.
In the midst of trial, Harris’ lawyer negotiated a plea deal for a four-year prison term. Zubaidah attended the trial, but his involvement was disputed. Harris’ lawyer claimed that Zubaidah advised Harris not to accept the deal. Harris rejected the offer and was later convicted and sentenced to 23 years, 6 months in prison.
In the other cases, Zubaidah sent letters to the judges asking for lower bonds, citing cases, and making legal arguments, though indicating that he was not an attorney.
In today’s per curiam opinion, the court noted that an individual who negotiates legal claims for another person and provides legal advice – even without charge and even when stating that he is not an attorney – is practicing law.
While a non-attorney who sends a character-reference letter for someone to a judge is not engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, the court stated that when a letter shifts to advocating specific legal positions for that person, the unauthorized practice of law occurs.
‘[D]espite the laudable desire to seek reform in the criminal system, such a desire cannot be realized by legally advising and advocating on behalf of a criminal defendant without violating our prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law,’ the opinion stated.
‘Zubaidah’s actions extended beyond the permissible conduct of endorsing a person’s character, advocating a social issue generally, advancing personal interests, or providing nonlegal advice to a family member. Despite Zubaidah’s good intentions and intermittent disclaimers, his conduct shows a pattern of advocating legal positions on behalf of defendants and providing legal advice to those defendants, leading to serious consequences for the STAND clients who trusted him.’
The court pointed out that Zubaidah held himself out as ‘an advocate with legal expertise,’ his agreements implied that he had specialized knowledge of the legal system, and his letters to judges ‘cited case law, raised legal issues, and asked for legal results.’ . . . [Emphasis added,]
10 Monday Feb 2014
Posted in Attorney Discipline, Kansas Supreme Court, Legal Ethics
≈ Comments Off on Legal Ethics Head’s Up – Don’t Get Drunk, Move A Dead Body, And Lie To Police.
Tags
Attorney Discipline, Kansas Supreme Court, Legal Ethics, Legal Profession Blog, Legal Profession Prof, Mike Frisch, Robert A. Mintz
Someone Died, Someone Lied, by Legal Profession Prof (Mike Frisch), Legal Profession Blog
A partner-shareholder has an adulterous affair with one of the firm’s associates who suffered from depression and alcohol abuse. From there, it sadly got worse. -CCE
11 Saturday Jan 2014
Posted in Attorney Discipline, Kansas Supreme Court, Legal Ethics
≈ Comments Off on Reinstatement of Suspended Attorneys With Unique Conditions.
Tags
Attorney Reinstatement, Bar Discipline, Kansas Supreme Court, Legal Ethics, Legal Profession Blog, Mike Frisch
Reinstated With Conditions, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Blog
The Kansas Supreme Court has reinstated two suspended attorney, with unique and unusual conditions imposed on each. Of the two attorneys reinstated by the Kansas Supreme Court, one is still on federal criminal probation. The other attorney is limited to representing only criminal defendants. -CCE
The Researching Paralegal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.