{"id":4815,"date":"2004-05-04T21:38:00","date_gmt":"2004-05-05T01:38:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/05\/04\/suspended-hammer\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:49","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:49","slug":"suspended-hammer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/05\/04\/suspended-hammer\/","title":{"rendered":"Suspended Hammer"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

It’s a wee bit anticlimactic, but paper lion lawyer, Jim “The Hammer” Shapiro, has been suspended from practice in New York State for one year.  According to New York Lawyer<\/EM>, “Shapiro said from his Florida home that the ruling is ‘unfair and unconstitutional’ but has little effect. He sold his Rochester-based law firm six months ago, he said.” (AP\/New York Lawyer<\/EM>, <\/FONT>Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended<\/FONT><\/A>, 05-03-04)<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"hammer\"  <\/FONT><\/SPAN>The Hammer’s braggadocio has been described <\/FONT>here<\/FONT><\/A>, and at <\/FONT>Overlawyered. com<\/A><\/FONT>.  This time, his transgressions involve a solicitation letter to a comatose hospital patient and a series of ads filled with swagger and the promise of more swagger.  As noted by New York’s 4th Department appellate division, in <\/FONT>Matter of James J. Shapiro<\/FONT><\/A> (April 30, 2004) (emphasis added):<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

“[W]e conclude that any reasonable attorney would know that a solicitation letter sent to a hospitalized comatose patient<\/STRONG> in the days immediately following a collision between her automobile and a train would reach the patient and her family at a time when they were unable to exercise reasonable judgment in retaining an attorney. Respondent, who had actual knowledge of the condition of the accident victim, will not be heard to argue that the disciplinary rule required him to be a “mind and body reader”<\/STRONG> in order to determine whether his solicitation letter could be sent.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

“We also agree with the finding of the Referee that the television commercials aired by respondent contained false and misleading statements. The commercials depicted respondent as an experienced, aggressive personal injury lawyer<\/STRONG> who was prepared to take and had taken personal action on behalf of clients.” <\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

    \n
  • \"mouse  “[R]espondent has not been actively engaged in the practice of law in this State since 1995.”<\/FONT>
    \n
  • “In contrast to the image of respondent depicted in the commercials, respondent has never tried a case to its conclusion<\/STRONG> and has conducted approximately 10 depositions<\/STRONG>.”<\/FONT>
    \n
  • We reject the contention<\/STRONG> of respondent that his television commercials consist of constitutionally protected hyperbole<\/EM><\/STRONG>. The statements in the television commercials aired by respondent are false; they do not consist of hyperbole.<\/FONT><\/LI><\/UL><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
    \n
    As a mitigating factor, the Court did note that Shapiro “consulted counsel concerning the language in his solicitation letters.”  Wouldn’t you love to know the name of that legal ethics expert?<\/FONT><\/DIV>
    \n

    <\/SPAN><\/FONT> <\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    It’s a wee bit anticlimactic, but paper lion lawyer, Jim “The Hammer” Shapiro, has been suspended from practice in New York State for one year.  According to New York Lawyer, “Shapiro said from his Florida home that the ruling is ‘unfair and unconstitutional’ but has little effect. He sold his Rochester-based law firm six months […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1fF","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4815","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4815"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4815\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13849,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4815\/revisions\/13849"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}