Florida Bar Writting the Complaint
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
FLORIDA BAR V. WENT for IT, INC.: SUPREME COURT SUCCUMBS to STATE REGULATION of LAWYER ADVERTISING
"LET ME REPRESENT YOU!" FLORIDA BAR v. WENT FOR IT, INC.: SUPREME COURT SUCCUMBS TO STATE REGULATION OF LAWYER ADVERTISING Kim Y. Oldham Advertising activity among members of the legal to reach out to individuals through various methods profession has grown more popular as a marketing of advertising.' The issue arises, however, of tool over the past twenty years.' Lawyers no longer whether permitting states to regulate lawyer adver- simply place advertisements in newspapers and the tising constitutes an unwarranted suppression of Yellow Pages.' Now, they rent billboards, send out commercial speech.' mass mailings, and broadcast radio and television Prior to the mid-1970's, the First Amendment of commercials.' In particular, the use of targeted, di- the United States Constitution did not include com- rect-mailings' to individuals known to have an im- mercial speech under its umbrella of protection." It minent legal need substantially increased during the was not until 1976 that the United States Supreme 1980's and continues to be a common medium for Court recognized the informational function of com- lawyer advertising.' mercial speech and granted it constitutional protec- Today, lawyers are becoming more innovative and tion.1" Subsequently in 1977, the Court decided the more aggressive in their attempts to solicit clients. 6 landmark case Bates v. State Bar of Arizona,"' in Consequently, states are becoming more concerned which the Court held that advertising by lawyers with the extent to which lawyers should be allowed should be included in the category of commercial 1 A.B.A. COMM'N ON ADVERTISING, LAWYER ADVERTISING new entrants into the legal profession and for small firms with AT THE CROSSROADS 47 (1995) [hereinafter LAWYER ADVER- low capital. -
Connecticut Bar Association to the Members of The
CONNECTICUT BAR ASSOCIATION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS NOTICE OF MEETING The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. at the Quinnipiack Club, 221 Church Street, New Haven, CT. Refreshments at 6 p.m.; dinner at 6:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Approval of the Minutes of the January 18, 2017 Meeting (Pages 1-2) 2. Report on Committee Sponsored CLE Programs (Deborah Del Prete Sullivan) 3. Report on Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.4 (Stovall) 4. Proposal by Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) to Amend Rules 7.1-7.5 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a. Draft Comments on APRL Proposal (Stith) (Pages 3-8) b. APRL Proposed Amendments to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 (Pages 9-20) c. 2015 Report of the APRL Regulation of Advertising Committee (Pages 21-59) d. 2016 Supplemental Report of the APRL Regulation of Advertising Committee (Pages 60-66) e. Invitation to Comment on APRL Proposal to Amend ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 (Page 67) 5. Proposed Amendment of Practice Book § 2-32(a)(2) (Conover, Murphy, Rinehart) (Pages 68-72) 6. Other Business 7. Adjourn MINUTES OF A MEETING OF CBA PROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE at The Quinnipiack Club, New Haven, January 18, 2017 Chair Stovall opened the meeting at about 6:35 p.m. Present were 15 other members: Benoit, Conover, Dauster, DeRosa, Horowitz, Kaplan, Knierim, Logan, Maurer, Reinhart, Slane, Santucci, Stith, Zaccaro, & Nessler. -
Ethics Informational Packet Ancillary & Other Business Arrangements
Ethics Informational Packet Ancillary & Other Business Arrangements Courtesy of The Florida Bar Ethics Department TABLE OF CONTENTS FLORIDA ETHICS OPINION Page # (Ctrl + Click to link) Ethics Alert: Business Arrangements with Nonlawyers ................................................................. 3 OPINION 02-8 ................................................................................................................................ 6 OPINION 98-1 ................................................................................................................................ 9 OPINION 97-3 .............................................................................................................................. 13 OPINION 95-2 .............................................................................................................................. 16 OPINION 95-1 .............................................................................................................................. 18 OPINION 94-6 .............................................................................................................................. 20 OPINION 92-3 .............................................................................................................................. 22 OPINION 88-15 ............................................................................................................................ 24 OPINION 79-3 ............................................................................................................................. -
Ethics Opinions Related to Technology
Ethics Informational Packet TECHNOLOGY Courtesy of The Florida Bar Ethics Department Ethics Opinions Related to Technology FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION OPINION 21-2 March 23, 2021 Advisory ethics opinions are not binding. A lawyer ethically may accept payments via a Web-based payment-processing service (such as Venmo or PayPal), including funds that are the property of a client or third person, as long as reasonable steps are taken to protect against inadvertent or unwanted disclosure of information regarding the transaction and to safeguard funds of clients and third persons that are entrusted to the lawyer. RPC: 4-1.1, 4-1.6(a), 4-1.6(e), 4-1.15, 5-1.1(a), (g) I. Introduction The Florida Bar Ethics Department has received several inquiries whether lawyers may accept payment from clients via Web-based payment-processing services such as Venmo and PayPal. This also is an increasingly frequent question on the Bar’s Ethics Hotline. Accordingly, the Professional Ethics Committee issues this formal advisory opinion to provide Florida Bar members with guidance on the topic. Several Web-based, mobile, and digital payment-processing services and networks (“payment-processing services”) facilitate payment between individuals, between businesses, or between an individual and a business. Some are specifically designed for lawyers and law firms (e.g., LawPay and LexCharge), while others are not (e.g., Venmo, PayPal, ApplePay, Circle, and Square). These services operate in different ways. Some move funds directly from the payor’s bank account to the payee’s bank account, some move funds from a payor’s credit card to a payee’s bank account, and some hold funds for a period of time before transferring the funds to the payee. -
NCBE Bar Admissions Guide
Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2020 National Conference of Bar Examiners American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar l National Conference of 'IlI!. Bar Examiners Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2020 National Conference of Bar Examiners American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar National M!!A. a Conference of AMERICANBARASSOCIATION l Legal Education and Bar Examiners I . Admissions to the Bar Editors Judith A. Gundersen Claire J. Guback This publication represents the joint work product of the National Conference of Bar Examiners and the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, nor has such approval been sought. Accordingly, these materials should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. National Conference of Bar Examiners 302 South Bedford Street, Madison, WI 53703-3622 608-280-8550 • TDD 608-661-1275 • Fax 608-280-8552 www.ncbex.org Chair: Hon. Cynthia L. Martin, Kansas City, MO President: Judith A. Gundersen, Madison, WI Immediate Past Chair: Michele A. Gavagni, Tallahassee, FL Chair-Elect: Hulet H. Askew, Atlanta, GA Secretary: Suzanne K. Richards, Columbus, OH Board of Trustees: Patrick R. Dixon, Newport Beach, CA John J. McAlary, Albany, NY Augustin Rivera, Jr., Corpus Christi, TX Darin B. Scheer, Casper, WY Anthony R. Simon, Jackson, MS Hon. Phyllis D. Thompson, Washington, DC Hon. Ann A. Scot Timmer, Phoenix, AZ Timothy Y.