Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealregulation
attorneyregulationgood faithrespondent

Related Cases

Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706, 182 P.3d 579, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5649, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6779
View Case »
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305, 54 USLW 4789
View Case »
Klitzman, Klitzman and Gallagher v. Krut, 744 F.2d 955, 17 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 880
View Case »
Culebras Enterprises Corp. v. Rivera-Rios, 846 F.2d 94, 56 USLW 2650
View Case »
Scarpelli v. United States, 469 U.S. 1106, 105 S.Ct. 779 (Mem), 83 L.Ed.2d 774
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of Alessi, 60 N.Y.2d 229, 457 N.E.2d 682, 469 N.Y.S.2d 577

Facts

The attorneys, partners in a legal clinic, were accused of professional misconduct for mailing letters to approximately 1,000 realtors in Albany, soliciting legal services for real estate transactions. The letters quoted fees for various services and were sent prior to the announcement of a rule prohibiting such advertising. The Appellate Division found the attorneys guilty but imposed no sanctions, leading to the appeal and subsequent Supreme Court involvement.

The committee's petition to the Appellate Division alleged that respondents were admitted to practice in New York, were partners in the legal clinic of Cawley and Schmidt, and were guilty of professional misconduct in that they approved for mailing on the letterhead of the clinic a letter, the body of which is set forth in appendix A of this opinion and the intent of which was to solicit engagement to render legal services in connection with real estate closings, which letter was mailed in August and September of 1979 to approximately 1,000 realtors in the Albany geographical area.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the attorneys' conduct constituted professional misconduct under the Judiciary Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and whether the regulations prohibiting direct mail advertising to real estate brokers were constitutionally valid.

The main legal issue was whether the attorneys' conduct constituted professional misconduct under the Judiciary Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Rule

The court applied the principles of the Judiciary Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility, determining that the provisions prohibiting direct mail advertising to real estate brokers were a constitutionally valid regulation of commercial speech.

The court held that to the extent that section of Judiciary Law and provisions of Code of Professional Responsibility proscribe advertising of attorneys' services by direct mail addressed to real estate brokers, such provisions are a constitutionally valid regulation of commercial speech.

Analysis

The court analyzed the attorneys' actions in light of the established legal framework, concluding that the mailing of solicitation letters to real estate brokers presented a potential conflict of interest. The court emphasized that the attorneys were chargeable with knowledge of the regulations and the potential implications of their conduct, even if the letters were sent before the formal announcement of the prohibitory rule.

The court concluded that there is no constitutional infirmity in the application of section 479 of the Judiciary Law and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility to respondents' conduct in approving the mailing by the legal clinic in which respondents are partners to some 1,000 realtors in the Albany area of a letter quoting fees for listed real estate transactions.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Appellate Division's finding of misconduct but imposed no sanctions, concluding that the attorneys' actions were in violation of the applicable regulations.

The order of the Appellate Division finding respondents guilty of misconduct in so doing but imposing no sanction is, therefore, affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Appellate Division, as the court upheld their finding of misconduct against the attorneys.

The Appellate Division found respondents guilty of misconduct but, noting that the letters were sent prior to the Appellate Division decision in Greene and in apparent good faith reliance on Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., determined that no sanction should be imposed.

You must be