An attorney I have retained in a civil matter has managed to get himself suspended for some stuff that happened some time back.
Here’s the newspaper article about the suspension:
Out of respect for copyright law, I won’t C&P the article.
There are, apparently, more lawyers than just him at his firm. When this all went down, I was sent the following email by his office.
*Dear client,
The law firm of Dann Doberduk & Wellen LLC is committed to working hard on behalf of our clients, standing up to the banks and big business. We will continue to fight the battle against foreclosure and protect the rights of the hard working people we are proud to count among our clients.*
<edited for copyright> [The letter explained that one partner at the firm was suspended, expressed surprise, and generally asserted that the remaining attorneys would continue to fight for their clients.]
QUESTION
So, uh, would this worry you guys?
If a law firm loses the services of a single partner, is that going to be crippling?
Depends on the size of the firm. Large firm? The work will be farmed out among associates and partners for the length of the suspension, presuming the disciplined lawyer doesn’t get booted from the firm. Small firm? They may say they can handle it, but I would be worried if the disciplined lawyer had been carrying a heavy load that had to be distributed over a few people.
In this particular case, some are expressing shock at the length of the suspension but honestly I am surprised he did not get hit with more. Dann was a high profile screw-up. For anybody who doesn’t read the article, Marc Dann was forced to resign his position as Ohio Attorney General due to a scandal in 2008.
To support howye’s point, one of the larger personal injury law firms locally recently (within the past five years) had one of the partners suspended for a period of about a year.
The partner was taken off the firm’s name, for the duration of the suspension, the firm’s advertising had to be reworked, and there may have been a small slow=down in how the firm could handle its cases. After the year was over, the partner’s name was restored to the firm, the advertising reworked again, and that’s been the extent of the notable effects for most outsiders.
Again, this was a firm at the larger end of the spectrum howye mentions, but is an example of how little effect a suspension may have on a firm’s long-term soundness.
The next place I’d suggest would be one one of the lawyer referral sites, which sometimes have the information, or call the local Bar association if they can tell you how large a firm might be.
In my opinion this man is a crook and the law firm hired him knowing that too. I’d get out of dodge for sure depending on how far along your action is toward completion. Remember, another attorney can take over the case and it should not end up costing you more.
The cynic in me thinks this guy is a crook, the other lawyers in his firm are probably crooks too, and if they’re crooking for YOU (as good lawyers do), you should stick with 'em.
I’d be very inclined to drop him - he does indeed sound like a crook. I don’t how that works - if a lawyer is crooking for you, doesn’t that open you up for future problems, too? I wouldn’t want that, anyway - I don’t want someone breaking the law on my behalf.
Sounds like a three partner (ie small) firm from the letter. However, their work load would be commensurate. Also, when a partner in a law firm starts getting involved in major outside appointments (like Attorney General) they are probably someone who has become disinterested (or maybe was never interested) in being “on the tools” and “their” work is probably being done by their staff anyway.
So at a practical level, you may well be fine sticking with this firm.
As to fiduciary aspects, I don’t know what sort of work you are giving to this firm. However, I would have some doubts about using someone with a signficant honesty offence against their name. Having said that, they (or their office) may well run your file perfectly competently.
1/ Good lawyers don’t crook for anyone.
2/ Bad lawyers will crook if that’s what their client wants, I expect. If this is what you want, you are a crook.
3/ Crooking lawyers come unstuck and they and their clients fall flat on their face usually, eventually if not sooner.
I’ve removed most of the letter because, technically, it’s subject to copyright. Mr. Slant, if you feel I’ve mischaracterized the letter, let me know and I’ll be glad to change my summary.
Yes. Birds of a feather seems to be more true in the legal profession than even some others. That’s obviously not proof his partners did anything. But it makes it more likely that a culture of “ethical flexibility” may be pervasive among the guys who chose to associate with him. If you talk to good, ethical lawyers, they agonize over every rule, and consult with colleagues or neutrals (most bar associations have an anonymous ethics hotline lawyers can call with hypothetical ethics dilemmas). His suspension suggests but does not prove that this sort of punctilio was not observed within this firm.
Broadly speaking, foreclosure defense on a case beginning in Summer 2010.
The ‘MERS foreclosure defense’ has been trotted out by defendant counsel, bank counsel has used the standard ‘MERS foreclosure defense is crap’ argument that such counsels use, followed by a standard ‘rebuttal of MERS foreclosure defense is crap’ on the part of the defendant’s counsel.
There were some extensions omitted in the summary above, but that isn’t really of much consequence.
Watching court cases like this makes me think of tennis.. played with balls made of drying paint.
At the very least I would have some serious questions for the firm about the nature of his financial behavior and if they had any internal reviews going on, etc. It sounds like the allegations of finacial skullduggery are what got him to resign and resume his law practice, so it sounds like they would have been aware of the charges when they made him a partner. That doesn’t sound very responsible on their part.
I would be concerned someone who is financially dishonest would be financially dishonest with my money.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
Sounds like a three partner (ie small) firm from the letter. However, their work load would be commensurate. Also, when a partner in a law firm starts getting involved in major outside appointments (like Attorney General) they are probably someone who has become disinterested (or maybe was never interested) in being “on the tools” and “their” work is probably being done by their staff anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Was he a partner in the firm, and then left it for the Attorney Generalship, and then went back to the firm? Or did he only join the firm after resigning from the Attorney Generalship?
If he used to be an AG, I’d definitely stick with him. He has big connections. His foulup was too big for even his connections to cover, but, unless you’re trouble is in that league, I’d stick with him.
