{"id":4842,"date":"2004-05-22T00:51:22","date_gmt":"2004-05-22T04:51:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/05\/22\/1-800-censured\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:45","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:45","slug":"1-800-censured","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/05\/22\/1-800-censured\/","title":{"rendered":"1-800-CENSURED"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\"subway . .  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P>
\n

The very visible NYC law firm of Wilens & Baker — known for its 1-800-DIVORCE, 1-800-BANKRUPT and 1-800-IMMIGRATION subway ads — has received public censure<\/STRONG> “for engaging in a pattern of rude, neglectful and demeaning conduct toward clients.”  Partner Lawrence M. Wilens was also censured individually.  (NYLawyer\/NYLJ<\/EM>, <\/FONT>High-Visibility NY Law Firm Censured<\/FONT><\/A>, 05-21-04)<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P>
\n

According to the NYLJ<\/EM> article:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

\n

“The violations arose in connection with the firm’s representation of several immigration clients between 1998 and 2002. When these clients or their relatives, many of whom spoke little English, visited the firm’s offices to inquire about their cases, employees would refuse to discuss the cases unless overdue or additional fees were paid. Those who were unable to pay were often yelled at and ordered to leave.” <\/FONT><\/P><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\"newspaper\"  In its unanimous, per curiam<\/EM> decision<\/A>, the Appellate Division, 1st Department, was unmoved by WB’s arguments that the censure should be private, due to the efforts made by the firm to improve its behavior — including anger management classes — and procedures; its sending of (rather vague and circumspect) apology letters; the refunding of fees to the complainants; and the garnering of character references from prominent corporate and criminal lawyers .  In Matter of Wilens and Baker<\/FONT><\/A> (2004 NYSlipOp 04077, May 20, 2004) <\/FONT><\/FONT>the court stressed:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n
“In our view, it would be particularly inappropriate to impose private discipline against an attorney or law firm that engages in a pattern of misconduct involving rude and discourteous behavior to clients-conduct that strikes at the very heart of a lawyer’s or law firm’s relationship to the public.”  <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
The court also noted:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
The Referee found that the respondents had “conducted themselves offensively with their clients… and also acted in intimidating ways to obtain additional or due fee payments,” and that consequently, “[they] should face the consequences of public knowledge of what they have done<\/STRONG>, notwithstanding their real and sincere efforts at reform.” The Referee also found it appropriate to impute to the WB firm the misconduct of its name partner. <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n


\n

It rejected an argument that being rude was not worthy of public censure, because it isn’t neglect of legal matters in the “classic sense.”  The court retorted: “this argument overlooks the prejudice and anguish caused by their pattern of threatening to cease working on their clients’ cases until additional legal fees were paid.”  Significantly, the court also stressed that (emphasis added):<\/FONT>
\n


\n

Disciplinary sanctions serve both deterrent and punitive functions<\/STRONG> . . . and although respondents’ reforms of their office procedures likely will assist in preventing future violations, they do not serve the punitive purpose of demonstrating that such unbridled misconduct will not go unpunished<\/STRONG>. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

<\/P>
\n

The pyj<\/EM> gang agree with the 1st Department — public censure is most appropriate, and “respondents’ misconduct likely would have warranted the more severe sanction of suspension,” had WB not taken such significant reform efforts.   We hope other firms are duly deterred.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n