Court rejects limit on when lawyers can solicit
By James Nash
The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)
Copyright 2006 The Columbus Dispatch
All Rights Reserved
The Ohio Supreme Court has scrapped a proposed ban on “ambulance chaser” attorneys who sign up clients immediately after an accident.
Lawyers and accident victims swamped the court with more than 600 letters opposing the ban, many noting that insurance companies can and do contact accident victims to pressure them to settle claims. Others said that many victims need speedy legal assistance and disputed the notion that solicitations from lawyers tarnish the profession.
In a letter released yesterday, Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer wrote that justices had decided against prohibiting lawyers from soliciting accident victims in part because of those arguments. Moyer signaled his own disagreement with the decision, writing that the court “unfortunately” chose not to include the ban in a package of rules governing attorney conduct that are scheduled to take effect in February.
Court spokesman Chris Davey said the court will not announce which justices voted for and against the ban, because it is a rule of the court rather than a case.
Seventeen states prohibit lawyers from soliciting accident victims as clients 30 to 45 days after the incident, according to the American Bar Association.
Supporters of an Ohio ban say it’s unseemly for lawyers to prey on people in vulnerable conditions — some still hospitalized — and that it contributes to negative perceptions of the profession.
Several said yesterday that they were surprised the Supreme Court would abandon the idea.
“People get in accidents and they get a bunch of letters from attorneys about becoming their clients,” said Columbus lawyer Jason Blue, whose firm specializes in injury and malpractice cases. “I think it confuses and irritates them. Lawyers should at least wait for the victims to get back from the hospital.”
The Supreme Court’s task force working on attorney-conduct rules received 627 written comments on the solicitation ban, with 22 in support and 605 against.
Columbus personal-injury lawyer Kevin Kurgis, who opposed the ban, wrote that it would penalize accident victims by making it easier for insurance companies to demand settlements from people who lack legal representation.
“It is important that you understand that these (solicitation) letters are a very efficient way to provide ordinary people with important information at a critical time (i.e. immediately after an accident),” Kurgis wrote. “I would not think that the letters are any more offensive than the television, yellow pages, and billboard advertisements that lawyers normally use.”
Attorney General Jim Petro also objected to the proposed ban, writing that it “could potentially have negative consequences for Ohio consumers.” A Petro deputy elaborated that a do-not-solicit rule would tilt the playing field in favor of insurance companies, which would take advantage of the rule to pressure victims to settle claims within 30 days of an accident.
Although some of its members felt differently, the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers supported the ban. The trade group’s spokeswoman, Lauren B. Goode, said it “holds attorneys to a higher standard of ethical integrity.” The group has its own code of ethics, but unlike the Supreme Court, it cannot punish violators.
On Aug. 1, the Supreme Court announced that it had adopted a sweeping package of rules, including keeping more-comprehensive records, explaining to clients in writing the terms of their representation and clarifying when out-of-state lawyers may practice in Ohio.
Those rules, which take effect Feb. 1, were generally not controversial. The Supreme Court received about 70 letters in response to them, Davey said — a fraction of the letters on the solicitation rule.