A Renowned Expert Gets Suspended
The New Jersey Supreme Court has imposed a six-month suspension of an attorney who violated multiple rules of professional conduct.
Details from this letter decision of the Disciplinary Review Board
Compounding the Board’s concern is respondent’s pattern of misrepresentations. Respondent repeatedly made misrepresentations to his clients and to the public via his fee agreements, websites, and advertising. Additionally, respondent made two distinct misrepresentations to disciplinary authorities. First, respondent misrepresented his alleged relationship with [national law firm] FLA and then lied about taking fees from clients in Maryland.
Ad misrepresentations
Respondent was a solo practitioner with no associates, partners, or “of counsel” relationship. Nevertheless, respondent used multiple law firm names and website addresses that contained plural designations, such as “Esquires,” “Attorneys at law,” and “Counsellors at Law” [sic].
Moreover, on his websites, respondent misrepresented the nature and size of his practice, even listing a retired attorney as someone currently associated with the firm in an “of counsel” capacity. Respondent also falsely stated on his website that his firm had been rated “AV” by Martindale-Hubbell, even after that company issued a Cease and Desist letter to him regarding his use of the AV rating. Further, respondent used an impermissible trade name, “Loan Law Center;” included on his website an impermissible client testimonial; stated on his website that he practices and operates as a limited liability corporation under a name not registered with the New Jersey Department of Treasury; did not maintain professional liability insurance; and did not use the firm name registered with the Department of Treasury in his marketing materials, retainer agreements, and other legal correspondence.
Further, in his websites, respondent stated that he was a “renowned expert in Internet Liable [sic] and Slander.” In fact, the Supreme Court has never certified respondent in any practice area and respondent’ s area of practice was limited to mortgage modifications. Respondent’s statement regarding his expertise in internet libel was patently false and had the clear potential to discourage clients and third parties from posting negative reviews of respondent’s law practice and mortgage modification business, all in violation of RPC 7.4(a) and RPC 8.4(c).
The DRB noted, but did not accept as an excuse, the attorney’s contention that his wife was responsible for the false advertising. (Mike Frisch)