Ethics Complaints Dismissed

Norwich bankruptcy attorney Zenas Zelotes

Friday, January 15, 2010
Attorney Ethics Complaints Dismissed

Ethics Complaints Dismissed In Total Attorneys Case
The Connecticut Law Journal by Douglas S. Malan - January 15, 2010

Grievance complaints were dismissed Friday afternoon against five Connecticut attorneys who have done business with Total Attorneys Inc. of Chicago. A Norwich bankruptcy attorney has grieved 12 attorneys in Connecticut more than 550 attorneys in 47 total states claiming that attorneys participating in the Total Attorneys network are paying for referrals, which is a felony offense in this state. Connecticut-licensed attorneys Matthew Rousseau, Gregg Wagman, Steven Lesko, Kenneth Lenz and Russell Small all have been cleared by the Statewide Grievance Committee. It’s likely that the other seven complaints, including one against Manchester attorney and State Rep. Ryan Barry, will be dismissed similarly, though a time table isn’t evident. The short summary decision offered no insight into the three-person hearing committee’s logic behind the decision. A full-length decision is due in two weeks. Chief Disciplinary Counsel Mark Dubois declined to comment until the full decision is released.

Connecticut was the only state to hold formal hearings on the matter. Those hearings occurred in November. Several other states had decided to take no action on the complaints. For defendants who have been part of a massive ethics complaint that was launched last spring, Friday afternoon offered a lot of peace of mind. “We’re delighted with the decision and hope it ends this particularly difficult piece of legal history,” said Raymond Garcia of Garcia & Milas, who was local counsel for Total Attorneys. Kimberly A. Knox and Brendon P. Levesque from the high-powered Hartford appellate firm Horton, Shields & Knox represented Wagman and Lenz. Levesque said it’s “been a crazy ride.” Levesque added, “We are thrilled that Connecticut has dismissed the grievance complaints. Our position has always been that this is simply lawyer advertising.” The company operates numerous web sites for different practice areas that all work the same way: Attorneys pay $65 to receive leads on potential clients who enter their zip code and other contact information through the web site. There’s no guarantee that the leads will turn into paying clients. Total Attorneys says its business model allows lawyers, who are mainly solo and small firm practitioners, to pool resources and pay for group advertising online.

Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 10:13 PM



Politician-Lawyer Named In Ethics Complaint
By DOUGLAS S. MALAN
LINK

State Rep. Ryan Barry, (pictured above) the co-chair of the legislature’s Banks Committee, is under fire after a local grievance panel found probable cause Friday that Barry engaged in unethical conduct through his Manchester law practice.

The finding does not mean Barry broke any laws or violated any ethics rules, but that his case is ripe for further review.

Barry is one of 12 attorneys in Connecticut who have been swept up by a massive ethics complaint filed against Total Attorneys, a Chicago-based business, over accusations that the company’s business model results in attorneys paying for referrals, which is a felony offense in Connecticut. Grievance officials have found probable cause for ethics violations against 11 of the attorneys.

Attorney Kimberly A. Knox, of Horton, Shields & Knox in Hartford, represents Barry and other Connecticut-licensed attorneys who have done business with Total Attorneys. She said current ethics rules established before the digital age have been wrongly applied to lawyers attempting to grow their business through the Internet.

“The advertising that forms the basis of the probable cause finding is not a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct,” Knox said in a written response to the finding. “The public’s need to know about legal services is fulfilled in part through advertising and the interest in expanding public information about legal services ought to prevail over considerations of tradition.”

Barry deferred to Knox for response to the finding.

Norwich bankruptcy attorney Zenas Zelotes filed the original complaint against Total Attorneys and its affiliated lawyers this spring, naming five attorneys. A supplemental complaint named an additional seven attorneys licensed to practice here.

Zelotes has targeted more than 550 lawyers in 47 states for their business dealings with Total Attorneys. The company operates numerous web sites for different practice areas that all work the same way: Attorneys pay $65 to receive leads on potential clients who enter their zip code and other contact information through the web site.

There’s no guarantee that the leads will turn into paying clients. Total Attorneys says its business model allows lawyers, who are mainly solo and small firm practitioners, to pool resources and pay for group advertising online.

Barry is name partner and founder of Barry & Barall where his general litigation practice includes commercial litigation, employee benefits and criminal law matters.

He entered into a relationship with Total Attorneys in July 2008 and was featured on two web sites -- totaldivorce.com and totalcriminaldefense.com. He terminated those contracts earlier this year after “very little business was generated,” according to Knox.

The panel found probable cause that Barry violated Rule 7.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that prohibits giving “anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services.” An exception includes paying the “reasonable cost of advertisements.”

The Statewide Grievance Committee will now set a hearing date.

Knox said Barry had no direct contact with anyone who contacted his firm through the Total Attorneys web sites; Barry’s partner, Maria C. Barall, handled all contacts.

Barry was elected to the state legislature in November 2002 as a Democratic representative for Manchester. In addition to being co-chair of the Banks Committee, he’s also a member of the Finance, Judiciary and Revenue & Bonding committees.

Four states have decided not to pursue Zelotes’ complaints. Connecticut is the only state that has found probable cause for ethics violations.

Last month, a formal hearing was conducted for Matthew Rousseau, a Massachusetts-based bankruptcy attorney who is licensed in Connecticut. His was the only case to be heard by a three-member ethics commission in Hartford. Rousseau’s lawyers moved to dismiss the case.•

Grievance Officials Target Legal Web Site
Connecticut Law Tribune
Monday, November 16, 2009
Copyright 2009, ALM Properties, Inc.

Hearing focuses on whether lawyers pay for referrals
By DOUGLAS S. MALAN

A Connecticut-licensed attorney ensnared by a nationwide ethics complaint moved to dismiss his case last week after a six-and-a-half hour hearing before a three-member ethics commission in Hartford.

The decision on the motion could have an impact on more than 550 lawyers in 47 states who have done or are doing business with Total Attorneys, a Chicago-based company that helps connect consumers to lawyers through web sites such as www.totalbankruptcy.com.

Norwich bankruptcy attorney Zenas Zelotes filed grievances against all of those lawyers, arguing that Total Attorneys’ method of connecting the parties is an example of lawyers paying for referrals, which is a felony in Connecticut and a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

For a $65 fee, attorneys who sign up with Total Attorneys receive leads on potential clients who enter their zip code and other contact information and click for a “free consultation.” The potential client is routed to the fee-paying lawyer who is closest to that zip code, and the lawyer has exclusive rights to all leads in that zip code.

Matthew Rousseau, a Massachusetts-based attorney licensed in Connecticut, is one of 12 lawyers licensed in this state to be named in Zelotes’ complaints. Five of those attorneys have had probable cause found against them.

Rousseau’s case was the only one heard last Thursday because his was the first in which probable cause was found.

Chief Disciplinary Counsel Mark Dubois argued that the Total Attorneys model violates state law and ethics codes because it is recommending a lawyer to people who enter their contact information. “We got in all of the evidence [during the hearing] that we needed to get in,” Dubois said. “The facts are not disputed. It’s just a matter of whether there were rules violations.”

Like Google?

Attorney David Atkins, of Pullman & Comley, represents Rousseau and two other Connecticut lawyers under fire. He moved for dismissal of the case, arguing that the Total Attorneys set-up is not recommending any lawyers but is just pointing people toward attorneys who choose to advertise with the company, similar to Google’s advertisement model.

“The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel cannot establish what it must establish by clear and convincing evidence,” Atkins said, that Total Attorneys is recommending lawyers to the public.

Zelotes said TotalAttorney is not the same as Google. While the search engine is selling advertising, he said, the net effect of the Chicago-based site is to provide direct referrals to lawyers. However, he acknowledged that at last week’s hearing, that he “got a sense from the questioning that the committee may not have [understood] the distinction” between Google’s model and Total Attorneys’ model.

If the motion to dismiss is granted, all of the Connecticut cases will be dropped. If the motion is denied, testimony in the Rousseau case will resume and the door will open for additional hearings. “Whatever the decision is, it will open a lot of eyes and we’ll see where we stand with all of this,” Zelotes said.

At least one state has already made that determination. Last month, Hawaii’s disciplinary counsel completed a full inquiry and decided that there was no basis to take any action on the ethics complaints filed there, mainly because the complaints raised First Amendment free commercial speech issues. •