I love LinkedIn, but here’s a potential hazard — what you say there can and will be used against you if you’re engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
A Colorado lawyer found that out the hard way: he was suspended in Pennsylvania for a year, and got the same discipline in Colorado, where he was licensed. (Actually, the suspensions were for a year-and-a-day, a punishment term that is loosely associated with ancient English common-law. Now you know.)
The only place the lawyer was licensed was Colorado. Nonetheless, according to the Pennsylvania disciplinary board’s report and recommendation, he maintained an office in the Keystone State, and registered that address with the Colorado Supreme Court.
He also held himself out to the public as being admitted to practice in Pennsylvania — namely in his LinkedIn profile, which mentioned his “Pennsylvania law firm,” and the Pennsylvania client entities he claimed to have represented. The profile also falsely stated that the lawyer had been licensed since 2006 to practice in Pennsylvania and also California.
That was a serious problem — in Pennsylvania, as in most states, holding yourself out as authorized to practice when you are not is an independent instance of misconduct (see Model Rule 5.5(b)(2)). It can even be a violation of state statute, like it is in my home state of Ohio.
The lawyer claimed that the false information on his profile resulted from not being “careful in writing” it, and that he had mistakenly cut and pasted information “from his resume” into the profile. The disciplinary board found those claims “not credible.”
The LinkedIn problem might have been enough to get the lawyer tagged for the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of Pennsylvania’s version of Model Rule 5.5, and for making “overt misrepresentations” in violation of Rule 8.4(c). But that wasn’t all he did, according to the disciplinary board findings.
In 2014, the lawyer appeared as counsel on behalf of a parent and her minor child at an expulsion hearing held at a Pennsylvania high school. The child happened to be the lawyer’s step-son, but the lawyer never disclosed that. He introduced himself at the hearing as counsel, and when asked for his attorney ID number the lawyer gave his Colorado bar number, but never disclosed before, during or after the hearing that he had never been admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.
The lawyer continued his representation in the high school expulsion matter for the next year, until the term of the child’s school discipline was complete. He then wrote to the superintendent that his “representation of [Child] is hereafter terminated.”
Don’t let his happen to you…
The lawyer in this disciplinary case brought a heap of trouble down on himself. But even if you would never practice where you are not authorized to do so, and would never hold yourself out as being admitted where you are not, this disciplinary case has a few takeaways.
- First, police your social media statements, and make sure they are accurate — because they can be a basis for disciplinary trouble. Here’s an article by my LinkedIn buddy, Missouri lawyer Michael Downey, on LinkedIn ethics issues — it’s from 2013, but still well worth reading.
- Second, if you get an inquiry from bar disciplinary counsel respond to it, even if it’s just to ask for more time or get clarification. The lawyer here failed to respond for many months, leading to an additional charge of failure to cooperate, which is another independent basis for discipline under Pennsylvania bar rules (as it is in other states, too).
- Third, be aware that ethical misconduct can be prosecuted in the state where it occurs as well as in your home jurisdiction, where you are licensed — and as here, your state of licensure will impose “reciprocal discipline” based on a finding of misconduct elsewhere.