Davis v. Alabama State Bar
1996 WL 26166, 676 So. 2d 306 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Law firm partners engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law when they implement a high-volume, advertising-driven business model with internal policies that systematically lead to incompetent representation, neglect of client matters, and the unauthorized practice of law by non-lawyer staff. A failure to provide the quality of legal services promised in advertisements can constitute a violation of ethical rules governing fitness to practice.
Facts:
- William Dowsing Davis III and Dan Arthur Goldberg were the sole partners in the Davis & Goldberg law firm.
- The firm spent approximately $500,000 annually on television advertising, which generated a very high volume of clients.
- To manage this volume, the firm allowed non-lawyer secretaries to interview clients, prepare legal documents like bankruptcy petitions, and provide legal advice.
- The firm imposed unmanageably high caseloads on its associate attorneys, with some managing nearly 600 active cases.
- The firm's internal policies included limiting the time associates could spend with clients and instructing them not to return calls from existing clients to free up time for new client intake.
- In one instance, a client named Douglas Wood hired the firm after seeing an ad promising to get Social Security benefits fast, but the firm lost his file three times and missed his appeal deadline.
Procedural Posture:
- The Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against William Dowsing Davis III and Dan Arthur Goldberg.
- Following a hearing, the Disciplinary Board found Davis and Goldberg had violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including those related to competence, communication, and supervision.
- The Disciplinary Board ordered that both attorneys be suspended from the practice of law for 60 days.
- Davis and Goldberg, as appellants, appealed the Disciplinary Board's order to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a law firm's business model, which uses heavy advertising to generate a high volume of cases and then implements internal policies that lead to incompetent representation and neglect of clients, constitute conduct that adversely reflects on the partners' fitness to practice law under the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Maddox, J.
Yes. A law firm's business model and resulting policies can constitute conduct that adversely reflects on the partners' fitness to practice. The evidence clearly and convincingly showed that the attorneys, in an effort to manage a huge volume of cases generated by their advertising, neglected clients and implemented policies that prevented their associates from providing competent legal services. While attorneys have a First Amendment right to advertise, they do not have a right to do so in a false and misleading way. The firm's advertising promised a high standard of service that it failed to deliver, and this failure, combined with the systemic neglect and unethical practices it fostered, violates Rule 8.4(g), which prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical link between a law firm's advertising, its business model, and its ethical obligations. It clarifies that while advertising itself is protected, the consequences of an advertising-driven, high-volume practice can lead to severe ethical violations. The court uses the broad 'fitness to practice' rule (Rule 8.4(g)) to discipline attorneys for the systemic failures of their firm, even when they were acquitted of a specific misleading advertising charge. This decision serves as a warning to firms that they cannot use advertising to generate more work than they can competently handle without facing disciplinary action for the resulting substandard legal services.
