Lawyer suspended for improper solicitation
Lawyer suspended for improper solicitation
Her son was in a coma suffering a brain injury from a car accident, in critical condition in the intensive-care unit. Only days after the crash, a lawyer approached the mother at Jackson Memorial Ryder Trauma Center and successfully solicited her to become his client for a fee.
The woman did not know the lawyer, and she did not ask for his services, according to her testimony.
The lawyer has now been suspended from practicing law for a year, after the Florida Supreme Court ruled October 5, in Case SC15-1305.
The court’s sanction is greater than the referee’s recommendation of a 60-day suspension, but, in keeping with other similar cases, it is less than The Florida Bar’s request for a two-year suspension.
After hearing testimony from several witnesses, the referee found the mother to be a credible witness and accepted her testimony over the lawyer’s, the court said. The referee recommended that the lawyer be found guilty of violating Bar Rule 4-7.18 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients).
“[The woman] was a vulnerable victim; she was consumed by her emotions and lacked a clear mind to consider hiring a lawyer because her son was in critical condition after a brain injury from an accident,” the unanimous court said.
“The solicitation rule exists to protect potential clients from this very situation in which lawyers act unethically to take advantage of potential clients, casting distrust on the legal profession as a whole.”
The court noted that the lawyer had previously received a public reprimand for solicitation in 2004.
“Therefore, a more severe sanction is warranted because [the lawyer] committed the same conduct for which he was previously disciplined,” the court said.
Furthermore, the justices noted, “‘[T]he court has moved toward imposing stronger sanctions for unethical and unprofessional conduct’ to protect the legal professional from dishonor and disgrace. Fla. Bar v. Rosenberg, 169 So. 3d 155, 1162 (Fla. 2015).
“Unethical violations of the solicitation rule, such as the ones committed by [the lawyer] in this case, have the potential to harm people who are already in a vulnerable condition and bring dishonor and disgrace on the entire legal profession. This court will not tolerate these improper solicitations and will ‘impose severe sanctions on those who commit violations of them.’ Barrett, 897 So 2d at 1277. Therefore, we conclude that a one-year suspension from the practice of law is warranted in this case.”
