Federal Judge Acts on Improper Solicitation by Counsel
The subject of improper solicitation by injury lawyers has received infrequent attention over the years. Counsel’s obligation to ethically fulfill his or her obligation to clients includes the duty not to improperly solicit clients in the first place. While not pleasing to some injury lawyers, the rules are meant to uphold both the dignity of our profession and an individual’s right to be free from undue influence in the selection of legal representation..
The National Law Journal reports that a federal judge has blasted plaintiffs and counsel, breaking with the long-standing reticence of judges to reject class certification based on allegedly improper solicitation of clients. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in San Francisco rejected class certification and castigated the plaintiffs' lawyer for what she called unethical conduct in allegedly manufacturing a case, then finding a plaintiff in a suit against Oreck Direct LLC, a maker of air purifiers.
Although only a handful of judges around the country in the last few years have accused lawyers of crossing the ethical line, observers in the defense bar hope Patel's order kicks off a trend. Some suggest it is the movement of consumer class cases out of state courts and into federal courts, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 that is bringing added judicial scrutiny to counsel’s conduct. Whatever the reason that this conduct is coming to light; improper solicitation should not be tolerated.
