Lowest Fees In The State

The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded an attorney for conduct described by the Dispiplinary Review Board

On June 16, 2020, the Committee on Attorney Advertising (CAA) sent a letter to respondent at his office address, directing him to “cease and desist” using his law firm website, which the CAA maintained contained false or misleading communications regarding respondent’s legal services. The CAA raised four issues in particular.

First, “[p]ursuant to Joint Committee on Attorney Advertising Opinion 41/ Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 718 (April 5, 2010), each lawyer office that is not staffed during business hours by a member of [respondent’s] firm must” be identified on the website as “meeting location – by appointment only.” The “website list[ed] eight office locations (without addresses),” and if any such location was not staffed during regular business hours, respondent was obligated to identify that location as “meeting location – by appointment only” on his website.

Second, although the website “d[id not contain the names of any lawyers or support staff,” its “home page display[ed] a photograph of two men and two women . . . . The men [were], presumably, [respondent] and Warren Walkow.” However, “Warren Walkow [was] deceased,” and “it [was] not clear what role the women ha[d] in the firm.” The photograph was misleading because it “impli[ed] that there may be four lawyers actively practicing in the firm” when,
 reality, respondent was the only practitioner.

Third, the website “refer[ed] to ‘attorneys,’” which was inaccurate because respondent was a solo practitioner.

Lastly, the website improperly “stat[ed] that [respondent’s] firm offer[ed] the ‘lowest fees in the State.’” This statement was improper because it was a comparison of “[respondent’s] services with other lawyers’ services.”

The CAA stated, in conclusion, that it would “forego formal action against” respondent if he submitted a certification, within thirty days, acknowledging that he would comply with advertising guidelines in the future and providing a link to his revised website.

The matter eventually was referred to the Office of Attorney Ethics; Respondent defaulted on the ensuing charges.

Rejected allegation

Here, the record does not clearly and convincingly prove that the “8 locations” were virtual offices. The fact that respondent did not list these locations’ addresses may suggest that they were unstaffed and not ready for visitors without notice. However, the OAE did not allege that respondent would have had to make a reservation in order to use any of the locations. Thus, we do not find that the “8 locations” were virtual offices or subject to the requirement that they be listed with the phrase “by appointment only.” We conclude that, in the absence of any evidence demonstrating  that respondent’s firm did not, in fact, have eight locations, the reference to “8 locations” was not, without more, false or misleading.

Sustained charges

Here, respondent compared his services to other lawyer’s services by claiming to provide “LOWEST FEES IN THE STATE.” Assuming that the words “© 2019 Walkow Law Office” adequately disclosed the name of the “comparing organization,” it is difficult to see how respondent could have substantiated his claim. He could not have known the rates of all lawyers in the State. Additionally, respondent did not include the disclaimer regarding the fact that his advertisement had not been approved by the Court. Thus, respondent violated RPC 7.1(a)(3).

Lastly, RPC 8.1(b) requires an attorney to “respond to a lawful demand for information from . . . [a] disciplinary authority.” Respondent violated this RPC twice – first, by failing to participate in any way in the OAE’s investigation of the CAA’s referral, and again by failing to answer the complaint.

Respondent has a previous reprimand. (Mike Frisch)