Ethics complaints target Ryan Barry, hundreds of others

 

By Alex Wood
Journal Inquirer

Published: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 10:10 AM EDT

 

Manchester state Rep. Ryan P. Barry is one of more than 500 lawyers in 47 states against whom a Norwich bankruptcy lawyer has filed legal ethics complaints, claiming they use promotional Web sites that constitute prohibited, for-profit lawyer referral services.

The bankruptcy lawyer, Zenas Zelotes, says local grievance panels in Connecticut have found “probable cause” to believe that five lawyers have violated ethical rules by using the Web sites at issue. Those lawyers are entitled to hearings before subcommittees of the Statewide Grievance Committee, and any action the committee takes can be appealed to Superior Court and ultimately to the state’s appellate courts.

Barry is a member of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee. Zelotes on Tuesday sent an e-mail to the Democratic co-chairmen and ranking Republican members of the committee saying he considers it “ethically impermissible” for Barry to serve on the committee while “under judicial investigation for criminal and/or professional misconduct.”

“Any member of the public can file a complaint against a lawyer in Connecticut,” Barry said today, adding that all such complaints are investigated.

“Anything will be done through that process that’s laid out by the rules and procedures of the Statewide Grievance Committee,” he added, declining to comment further on the substance of Zelotes’ complaint.

Barry also declined to comment on Zelotes’ e-mail to the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, saying he hadn’t seen it.

The Web sites at issue in Zelotes’ complaints are operated by companies of which Chicago lawyer Kevin W. Chern is president.

“All we’re doing is reselling access to Google AdWords,” Chern said in a brief telephone interview late Tuesday afternoon. “We’re selling advertising.”

Connecticut lawyers, like those in most of the country, have been permitted to advertise for decades.

Lawyers also generally are permitted to use nonprofit referral services, often operated by bar associations. But codes of professional conduct generally prohibit lawyers from using for-profit referral services.

Felony in Connecticut

In Connecticut, paying for referrals to a lawyer or accepting such a payment is a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Chern said he is president of TotalBankruptcy Inc. and Clear Bankruptcy Inc., which operate a number of Web sites promoting the services of certain lawyers.

The Web sites at issue in Zelotes’ complaints operate under those and other names, including the one that lists Barry’s firm, Barry & Barall, among its “sponsoring divorce attorneys:”

www.totallawyers.com

Other sites at issue include:

www.totaldivorce.com

www.totaldui.com

The Web sites contain disclaimers like this one, which appears in small type at the bottom of the main page of the totallawyers site: “This Web site is not a lawyer referral service or prepaid legal services plan and the owner neither endorses nor recommends any sponsoring attorney.”

Zelotes sent a reporter copies of three written probable cause findings by local grievance panels against Connecticut lawyers. In one of them, the New London Judicial District Grievance Panel explained why it considered one of Chern’s Web sites to be a referral service rather than legitimate advertising:

“Unlike for-profit directory advertising, which is open to anyone … the third-party Web site in question limits its listing in a given geographical or practice area, and therefore the advertising appears to be recommending the participating lawyers to the prospective client.”

Zelotes says he learned of Chern’s Web sites when he received a telephone solicitation to participate in a Web site listing.

A county to himself

Zelotes says in a written complaint that the caller, whom he identified as Aaron Roemig, told him “he would be given exclusive rights to New London County as relates to attorney inquiries on ClearBankruptcy.com.” He quoted Roemig as saying in a subsequent telephone conversation, “What we are avoiding saying is that you are paying us a referral fee.”

Zelotes said Roemig told him that Chern had hired an “independent ethics attorney,” who had spent 250 hours researching “every case in the nation.” But he said Roemig also told him that the proposed fee arrangement had never been submitted to a bar association for an independent advisory opinion.

Zelotes said Roemig told him that the company’s fee — $65 for each potential client sent to the lawyer — wasn’t an impermissible referral fee because the lawyer pays it regardless of whether the client hires the lawyer.

There is some question as to whether the payment arrangement is the same in all cases. The New London grievance panel said there was no evidence that New London lawyer Gregg W. Wagman “agreed to pay for each client referred.”

Nevertheless, the grievance panel found probable cause to believe that Wagman had violated ethical rules because of the limited number of listings on the Web site.