Attorney Suspended for Attending Conferences While on Suspension
A Philadelphia attorney received a five-year suspension after he continued to appear at court conferences while his license was suspended.
William J. Weiss was suspended for one year and one day by
Order of the Supreme Court dated March 5, 2019, effective April 5, 2019. This was his third suspension. Although he received notice of the order imposing the suspension, he appeared at and actively participated in case management conferences in two cases. In both instances, he appeared when counsel of record was unable to attend on behalf of clients represented by the law firm where he was employed. He also appeared at a settlement conference in a case in which he had entered an appearance prior to his suspension, accompanying an attorney on active status who introduced Weiss as his assistant. The Disciplinary Board found that he improperly attended the latter event even though he did not actively participate and was introduced as a legal assistant.
The Board found that Weiss violated four Rules of Professional Conduct and six Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. In addition to his misconduct, the Board found several aggravating factors in addition to his prior discipline. He evaded service of the Petition for Discipline; failed to attend the prehearing conference or comply with the prehearing order; was combative, rude, and disrespectful at the hearing; refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing; showed no remorse; and continued to present himself as a practicing attorney on social media. The Board disagreed with a Hearing Committee finding that his response to Disciplinary Counsel’s initial letter of inquiry was a mitigating factor. The Board found that he had engaged in similar misconduct in response to his earlier suspension and identified him as a recidivist offender who had not learned from disciplinary experience.
The Disciplinary Board recommended a five-year suspension, the maximum length of suspension available under the rules. The Supreme Court accepted this recommendation and suspended Weiss for a period of five years.
How to Steal (Twelve) Million
Not all
fare as well as Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole.
A former New York lawyer
faces prison time ̶ again. Douglas Raymond Arnsten was sentenced to jail time in 2012 after pleading guilty to grand larceny and scheme to defraud, admitting that he stole over ten million dollars from clients. According to prosecutors, during his tenure as an associate at Crowell & Moring law firm, Arnsten funneled money from escrow funds into accounts that he controlled. He
spent the stolen money on sporting events, expensive meals, strip clubs, various investments, and the purchase of businesses. He
was disbarred in 2013 and served five years in prison.
Last month, Arnsten once again
was sentenced to prison. In December, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, having pilfered approximately $1.4 million in COVID-19 pandemic relief funds.
Throughout the summer of 2020, Arntsen engineered a scheme to submit fraudulent loan applications to the Small Business Administration through its Economic Injury Disaster Loan program which, in 2020,
was expanded to “provide funding to help small businesses recover from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic”. He recruited thirteen others to submit fraudulent loan applications claiming they owned small businesses with which they had no relation. Prosecutors stressed his influence over these individuals who believed him to be an active lawyer and legal expert.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams dubbed Arnsten a "recidivist fraudster" while U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel made clear that Arntsen had “not gotten the message” to not commit further crimes.
Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association Issue Joint Formal Opinion Regarding Artificial Intelligence
The benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in the practice of law are undeniable, and its prevalence across industries is growing rapidly. However, the application of AI has also presented ethical issues for the legal community. On May 22
nd, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association issued a
Joint Formal Opinion on the use of AI.
In the Opinion, the two associations define pertinent terms, illustrate the challenges of AI “hallucinations” and “false answers”, explore the implications of Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct, lay out guidelines for the ethical usage of AI, and expound guidance within other jurisdictions around the United States.
Read the full Joint Opinion issued by the PBA and Philadelphia Bar Association
here.
Note that this Opinion “is advisory only and is not binding on the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or any other Court. This opinion carries only such weight as an appropriate reviewing authority may choose to give it.”
ABA Ethics Committee Is Adamant: Don’t Post Client Information on Listservs
Among the technological innovations of this time is the development of listservs, internet groups where lawyers can exchange information to enhance their practices (or for other purposes). Many times, lawyers will post inquiries on listservs, seeking information or advice on some area of practice. Some may be tempted to post client stories or issues in anonymous terms to seek advice, suggestions, or reactions. The ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has one word of advice on that subject:
don’t.
Formal Opinion 511, published by the Standing Committee on May 8, 2024, addresses what lawyers may post on listservs. The opinion focuses on the requirements of
ABA Model Rule 1.6 [
Pennsylvania version], dealing with confidentiality of client information.
The Committee notes that Model Rule 1.6 “restricts communications that could reasonably lead to the discovery of information relating to the representation”. It adds that, in the absence of informed client consent, lawyers are barred from disclosing such information even in anonymized, hypothetical, or in abstracted form if it is reasonably likely that someone might ascertain the client’s identity or the situation involved.
The Opinion examines whether lawyers have implied authorization to reveal information relating to the representation of a client to a wider group of lawyers by posting an inquiry or comment on a listserv and concludes they are not. It states, “a lawyer must have the client’s informed consent to post a hypothetical to a listserv if, under the circumstances, the posted question could reasonably lead to the discovery of information relating to the representation because there is a reasonable likelihood that the reader will be able to ascertain the identity of the client or the situation involved.” The same reasoning applies to replies to inquiries, to attempts to build one’s practice through networking, and to “war stories.”
In some circumstances, such as when the inquiry is so general that it cannot be identified with any particular client, a lawyer may post general questions or hypotheticals if there is no reasonable possibility the inquiry could be identified with any particular client. The Committee adds, “The more unusual the situation, however, the greater the risk that the client can be identified, and therefore the greater the care that must be taken to avoid inadvertently disclosing client information.”
The Committee notes that some circumstances may pose an elevated risk of identification of the client from circumstances, such as where the lawyer represents a single client (
e.g., as in-house counsel or government lawyer), the matter has received such wide media attention that the facts may be recognizable, or the message is posted to an online community so small and connected that members may be likely to recognize information the general legal population would not.
The Committee takes note that resources such as listservs serve a positive role for lawyers in maintaining their competence and providing effective service to clients. The Committee cautions, however, that lawyers participating in them should always be aware of and guard against the risk that postings may result in the unintentional disclosure of confidential client information.
Law Firms and the Growth of Deepfakes
Coming in second only to malware infections, the rise of deepfakes has become a growing concern of law firms around the globe. A
deepfake, or “a specific kind of synthetic media where a person in an image or video is swapped with another person's likeness”, presents a particular kind of challenge for the world of cybersecurity. However, many law firms are coming to understand that training and thoughtful preparation for deepfakes will be essential to protecting the integrity of their practice in the near future.
Deepfakes could pose a wide variety of problems,
including “client voice cloning”. Considering the sensitive data that firms often hold for their clients, it is imperative that they are adequately guarded against threats to such information.
A panel of law and cybersecurity experts recently
offered tips for the battle against deepfakes on the
Above the Law blog. First, the authors urge recognition of common hallmarks of deepfake schemes:
- The communication is urgent, particularly when monies are to be wired immediately. The authors all agree that you should take special care when you are asked to deal in cryptocurrencies which are still often fraught with risks.
- Gifts cards? Oh yes, we have seen a law firm where an employee was asked to buy gift cards by the “managing partner”. She bought $1,200 worth of gift cards which ended up in the criminal’s hands. And no, the firm did not reimburse her. A law firm’s version of “tough love”, we suppose.
- Other indicators of probable fraud include “don’t tell anybody what you’re doing” warnings, asking for personal/confirmation information, and telling you to keep the communication itself on the “down low”.
Consider employing a code word to connote authentic communications. This chosen term should be one unlikely to come up naturally in a legal discussion. Although this practice is imperfect, it is simple.
Fortunately, as deepfakes become more sophisticated, so likely will detection technologies. The key is to stay informed and to provide practical and up-to-date training for firm employees to protect themselves and clients.
Michigan Man Attends Zoom Hearing While Driving Without a License
Over the past few years, many have fallen victim to the potential foibles of video conferencing. In fact, who can forget the havoc that a
cat filter can wreak on a court proceeding? Nevertheless, one Michigan man has gained national attention for his
virtual blunder during a May hearing.
Last month, Corey Harris attended a hearing via Zoom related to prior criminal charges. It took only a moment for the presiding judge, Hon. J. Cedric Simpson, to notice that Harris was driving as he joined the video meeting. Harris announced that he was, at present, pulling into a parking lot and proceeded to proudly confirm when his car was stationary.
The problem in this case, however, is that, as Judge Simpson queried knowingly, “This is a driver with a license suspended?”.
The prosecutor verified, “That is correct, your Honor.”
"I don't even know why he would do that," Simpson uttered with disbelief. He revoked Harris’s bond, ordering him to turn himself in by 6:00pm that day at the risk of the issuance of a bench warrant.
In a video excerpt of the proceeding
available via CBS News, Harris is seen rolling his head in clear anguish as he realizes that he filmed himself committing a crime during his court hearing.
Is a Taco a Sandwich? An Indiana Court Says Yes
The online community, for years, has been debating what does and does not constitute a sandwich. Finally, an Indiana court has provided an answer ̶ sort of.
Is a taco a sandwich? A Superior Court Judge in Allen County
says yes.
In 2022, Fort Wayne restaurant-owner Martin Quintana
sought to open a second location of his eatery The Famous Taco. The restaurant would prepare made-to-order tacos, burritos, and tortas in an area zoned for residential use. Limited commercial development is permitted in the area, allowing “a sandwich bar-style restaurant whose primary business is to sell 'made-to-order' or 'subway-style' sandwiches”.
Quintana requested an amendment to the agreement, which would allow him to open his restaurant on the property, but was denied by the Fort Wayne Plan Commission. He appealed to the county court who ultimately ruled in his favor. Judge Craig J. Bobay’s decision stated that Quintana’s amendment proposal was “certainly courteous [but] not necessary” as the restaurant’s planned offerings, in fact, would fall within the scope of the original zoning terms.
The decision concludes:
The Court agrees with Quintana that tacos and burritos are Mexican-style sandwiches, and the original Written Commitment does not restrict potential restaurants to only American cuisine-style sandwiches. The original Written Commitment would also permit a restaurant that serves made-to-order Greek gyros, Indian naan wraps, or Vietnamese banh mi if these restaurants complied with the other enumerated conditions.
