A few judges wrote very glowing things about a lawyer:
"Mr. Dwyer is, I think, an exceptional lawyer, one of the most exceptional lawyers I've had the pleasure of appearing before me. He is tenacious, professional in his presentation to the Court, a bit too exuberant at times, certainly passionate about his position, but no one can fault his zeal and his loyalty to his client, and no one can question his intellect . . . ." Hon. Jose L. Fuentes, J.S.C., in an unpublished judicial opinion concerning a fee application made in an employment discrimination case brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
"The inescapable conclusion is . . . that plaintiffs achieved a spectacular result when the file was in the hands of Mr. Dwyer. . . . Mr. Dwyer was a fierce, if sometimes not disinterested advocate for his clients, and through an offensive and defensive motion practice and through other discovery methods molded the case to the point where it could be successfully resolved." Hon. William L. Wertheimer, J.S.C., in an unpublished judicial opinion concerning a fee application made in an employment discrimination case brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
"Based upon my observations of him in court there's no question in my mind that he is in the upper echelon of employment lawyers in this state . . .” Hon. Douglas H. Hurd, in an unpublished judicial opinion concerning a fee application under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act.
Lawyer puts these on his web page. Result? New Jersey adopts a guideline prohibiting this. The federal district court opinion denying the lawyer's motion to enjoin implementation of the regulaton, Dwyer v. Cappell, is here.
A stronger point in your favor: the vacatur means that the statements are not even technically correct.
I wondered if that was you, Ron! Hope all is well!
I’ll go further than that: If, like me, you publicize big wins, you should publicize big losses too. I do, and it’s no fun, but I do think it’s necessary — as long as doing so is not consistent with the clients’ interests, of course.
I try to make lemon out of lemonade, by encouraging those who follow my tweets or my blog to consider the issues I raised and the opinion of the court that disagreed with me.
By the way — Hi, Dave!
Agreed with that, too. Anyone putting up a result needs to be careful to update it and be accurate.
Here’s another area of misleading “website advertising”: Instances where an attorney in their bio page posts information on getting a favorable result for a client that then gets overturned on appeal. Opposing counsel in one of our cases got a summary judgment order of non-infringement. Several months later, all the lawyers on the (then) winning side updated their bios noting that they got summary judgment ruling in favor of their clients. The CAFC then vacated the summary judgment order on appeal. None of those lawyers ever updated their bios to take down their statements on getting a favorable summary judgment order for their client. While these statements were still technically correct (they did get a favorable ruling), its still misleading to a potential client. Reading the bio page it appears that the case ended at summary judgment when, in fact, the “favorable” ruling was eventually vacated. Its standard practice in the industry but its wrong.
Agreed. At some point the Supremes will revisit this whole area…
I think that the decision errs by the mere finding of the quotes snipped from a decision are “inherently misleading,” even if there is a separate rule constraining judge behavior (e.g., “In fact, judges are expressly prohibited from endorsing attorneys or providing testimonials regarding attorneys).
I have not seen the website and do not know the context of the quotes (so in this particular case, the quote use CAN be improper), but quoting from a decision cannot be inherently misleading on its own face, given the widespread practice within law itself. Requiring the FULL opinion in order to provide context is unnecessary overkill, and is EASILY more extensive than necessary.
Comments are closed.