A public defender’s office may not necessarily be considered a “law firm” in determining whether client confidences should be imputed to all public defenders serving in that office.

The goal of the lawyer disciplinary process is to protect the public and it is not the duty of a licensing Court to engage in psychological analysis as to why a lawyer has engaged in acts of neglect, but rather to remove that lawyer from practice where warranted.

The constitution and immigration laws do not entitle an alien in removal proceedings to relief for a lawyer’s mistakes, but the Department of Justice may as “a matter of administrative grace” reopen removal proceedings where an alien shows he was prejudiced by the actions of private counsel.

Advertising describing attorneys as “Super Lawyers,” “Best Lawyers in America,” or similar comparative titles may be protected commercial speech.

Disbarment is an appropriate sanction when a lawyer fails to conform his behavior to his large law firm’s culture of ethical practice, notwithstanding attention deficit disorder, sleep apnea and severe personality problems.

Flat fees should initially be deposited into a trust account but must be transferred to an operating account as soon as fees are earned with reasonable promptness.

Improper Litigation Management and Improper Oversight of an Inexperienced Subordinate Attorney Warrant Discipline.

A lawyer can be held liable for the alleged misconduct of out of state lawyers where all are associated on a case.

A graduate from a non-ABA accredited law school has a high burden in establishing fraud against administrators when he had sufficient advance notice that the school lacked such accreditation.

The misuse and abuse of e-mail communications are becoming a greater source of
lawyer disciplinary activity.

This is not a disciplinary case. Instead, it is a consumer action brought in New York state court by a long-time lawyer who either got tired of receiving annoying unsolicited facsimile transmissions from another attorney or recognized a revenue-generating opportunity. You decide.

Retail legal form business operations must ensure that absolutely no advice of any kind is dispensed to the consuming public.

Resorting to intimidation tactics to collect a professional fee warrants discipline.

A law professor who cheats in an academic environment is subject to disciplinary sanction.

The Sixth Amendment May Require Criminal Defense Counsel to do All that is Necessary to Defend a Client Including Engaging in Conduct Involving Pretexting or Deception.

The First Amendment Absolutely Protects Subjective-Based Lawyer Rating Systems.

Knowingly assisting a judge in violating judicial ethics rules and campaign finance laws is conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice warranting substantial discipline.

In order to mitigate a disciplinary sanction, a lawyer who has a diagnosed mental disorder must provide competent proof that the disabling symptoms are fully managed.

Courtesy and civility rules that do not allow any exception for truthful speech, political speech, or for speech that does not create a substantial likelihood of material prejudicing a pending case, are overbroad and cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court should not review a state court denial of application for admission to the bar without examination notwithstanding the fact that the state court provided no reason for the decision to deny the application.

As a general rule, empirical evidence is necessary to support any state restriction on misleading advertising.

In extraordinary situations involving allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, the disciplinary authority can proceed with formal charges against a prosecutor notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case that involved the alleged misconduct.

Any written retainer agreement, regardless of the type of retainer contemplated, should clearly define the kind of retainer being paid. In the event that a jurisdiction recognizes advance payment retainers, the fee agreement should, at the very least, be in writing, use the term ‘advance payment retainer’, and clearly state that the funds become the property of the lawyer when paid and that the funds will not be held in a client trust account.

Inappropriate Public Criticism of the Disciplinary Process in the Wake of a Disciplinary Sanction May Warrant Further Discipline.

Because the lawyer disciplinary function is essentially judicial in nature, and because the lawyer regulatory process is generally under the ultimate administrative authority of a court, lawyer regulatory records and documents should typically protected from dissemination pursuant to public record statutes.

A judicial officer should not voluntarily vouch for the character of a disciplined attorney during the course of a reinstatement proceeding.

A chronic history of disciplinary problems does not necessarily preclude reinstatement if a lawyer can establish current moral character and fitness.

Making material misrepresentations during the course of a disciplinary proceeding warrants disbarment.

A rule prohibiting a non-admitted attorney from maintaining a law office in a state where he or she does not posses a law license does not offend the constitution even when that that non-admitted attorney merely confers with out-of-state clients by telephone from the in-state office, regardless of the nature of the legal issues or the whereabouts of the client.

A disabling conflict of interest existed where a criminal prosecutor wrote a fictional novel based, in some detail, on a case that she was personally prosecuting because there was a reasonable possibility that the prosecutor’s desire to see her self-penned novel commercially succeed would trump her obligation to assure that a defendant would be accorded his constitutional rights.

Conditioning Federal Reinstatement upon State Court Readmission Does Not Offend the Supremacy Clause.

A lawyer charged with misconduct cannot assert an advice of counsel defense in light of the plain language of court rules.

Federal agencies have the authority to refer the conduct of an agency lawyer to Bar Counsel even when that agency does not believe the lawyer’s conduct was an intentional or reckless violation or professional standards.

Under the Supremacy Clause, when state law conflicts or is incompatible with federal law, the federal law preempts the state law. As a result, a lawyer suspended or disbarred by a state can still maintain a law office within that state’s borders to conduct a federal law practice if that lawyer remains in good standing in the federal court.

When a lawyer comes to learn that a client has testified falsely, the lawyer has a duty to reveal the fraud to the tribunal at the first opportunity such as a sidebar during a jury trial.

If Bar Counsel’s investigative records are protected from discovery based upon the work product doctrine, a discovery deposition of Bar Counsel’s staff regarding those records is inappropriate.

A disparate disciplinary sanction for the same misconduct should not lead to a modification of the sanction absent unique circumstances, such as judicial error.

Threatening criminal prosecution to obtain advantage in custody matter, stating or implying an ability to improperly influence a public official, and taking action on behalf of client merely to harass or maliciously injure another warrants a suspension from the practice of law.

An applicant’s federal civil rights case seeking admission to the bar becomes moot after the applicant is admitted to practice.

A bar applicant convicted of a serious crime has a great burden of establishing rehabilitation when the unlawful misconduct is substantial and, in the case of extremely damning misconduct, a showing of rehabilitation might be virtually impossible to make.

Injecting race into a judicial proceeding where it is not relevant is offensive, unprofessional and warrants public sanction.

The First Amendment provides that a disciplinary grievant may speak publicly regarding the fact that a grievance has been filed, the content of that grievance, and the result of the regulatory process, notwithstanding state confidentiality guidelines.

Conflict of interest rules governing business transactions with clients require, at a minimum, that a lawyer suggest to the client that the client seek independent legal advice from a lawyer, not a non-legal professional.

While a disciplinary rule violation does not generally give rise to a cause of action, it does not follow that the ethics rules do not embody a public policy of sufficient clarity or consequence to justify a claim for wrongful discharge against a lawyer's employer.

An attorney may not turn over control of his firm and attorney trust accounts to a third-party non-attorney.

A criminal law prosecutor has no discretion to withhold evidence when the evidence impeaches the testimony of a witness whose credibility or reliability may determine guilt or innocence notwithstanding the fact that the prosecutor may believe that the evidence is inculpatory rather than exculpatory.

A ruse investigation created by private practitioners in order to induce a former judicial law clerk into disclosing confidential communications with a judge was improper and warrants a disbarment recommendation.

A pattern and practice of excessive and duplicative litigation can violate the ethics rule providing that lawyers shall make reasonable effort to expedite litigation.

The rule prohibiting a lawyer from communicating with a represented party in a matter does not prohibit an attorney who is contacted by that party from communicating with the party when the attorney is not involved in the matter.

A lawyer may not operate a law office within state borders in order to maintain a federal court practice when that lawyer is not authorized to practice within the state due to discipline.

Misleading Advertising-Claims of Expertise that can not be Verified or Substantiated.

Federal Jurisdiction of State Interim Suspension Decisions.

Misrepresentation to Lawyer Regulation Staff During an Investigation.

Sufficiency of Clear and Convincing Evidence in a Disciplinary Proceeding

Subverting the Judicial Process