Zimmerman v. Office of Grievance Committees
| Decision Date | 18 February 1981 |
| Citation | 79 A.D.2d 263,438 N.Y.S.2d 400 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Aaron Mark ZIMMERMAN, an Attorney, Respondent, v. OFFICE OF GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES, Petitioner. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David E. Brennan, Office of Grievance Committees, Buffalo (Paul J. Ginnelly, Syracuse, of counsel), for petitioner.
Sugarman, Wallace, Manheim and Schoenwald, Syracuse (Donald Schoenwald, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondent.
Before DILLON, P. J., and CALLAHAN, DOERR, DENMAN and SCHNEPP, JJ.
Respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York on September 12, 1977. The Grievance Committee of the Fifth Judicial District charged in its petition instituting this disciplinary proceeding that respondent advertised in the Yellow Pages of the New York Bell Telephone Directory for Syracuse, New York for the year 1980-81 that he practiced in each of the 25 areas of law listed alphabetically in the advertisement which appeared under the caption "Lawyers Grouped by Practice" and that this conduct appears to violate DR 2-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 1022.16(a) (22 NYCRR 1022.16 According to the petition, respondent admitted that "he has had no experience at all in several of these categories of law".
By this answer respondent admitted the material allegations of the petition, but denied that he either intended to violate or, in fact, violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent's answer details the methods adopted by the telephone company in obtaining his listing in the "various categories where he was willing to accept clients who came to him with problems", and asserts that he is associated with a well-established law firm to whom he could We find that respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 2-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the rules of this Department (22 NYCRR 1022.16[a]).
turn for assistance and that at the time he purchased the advertisement he did not feel that his conduct was improper. He claims that the guidelines and rules set forth in DR 2-101(A) are "vague, ill-defined", and that he had no intention to mislead or deceive. The parties conceded that no order of reference was required.
Section DR 2-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
A lawyer on behalf of himself or herself or partners or associates, shall not use or disseminate or participate in the preparation or dissemination of any public communication containing statements or claims that are false, deceptive, misleading or cast reflection on the legal profession as a whole.
Our Department rule, effective March 1, 1978 entitled "Advertising by Attorneys", is identical to DR 2-101(A).
An examination of the advertisement, a copy of which is attached to the petition and annexed hereto as Appendix A, reveals that its publisher divided the practice of law into 25 separate categories under each of which respondent's name appears first: his name is listed alphabetically by his given name, Aaron, rather than by his surname, Zimmerman. Under the advertisement's caption appears the following legend: "Lawyers listing areas of practice in the Yellow Pages have not necessarily been certified by any state or federal authority as having any more competence in these areas than any other lawyers".
Commercial speech in the form of truthful advertising of legal services, designed to disclose information to permit a consumer to reach an informed decision and to identify the legal services he desires, serves individual and societal interests and while it may be regulated by the state it may not be proscribed (Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810, see also In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 1893, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zimmerman v. Grievance Committee of Fifth Judicial Dist. of State of N.Y., 455
...1 The Appellate Division issued a decision and order censuring Zimmerman for professional misconduct. In re Zimmerman, 79 A.D.2d 263, 438 N.Y.S.2d 400 (4th Dep't 1981) (per curiam). Zimmerman's appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was dismissed. 53 N.Y.2d 937, 440 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 423 N.E.......
-
Zimmerman v. Grievance Committee
... ... Office of Grievance Committees, 79 A.D.2d 263, 265, 438 N.Y.S.2d 400, 402 (4th Dep't 1981), appeal dismissed, 53 N.Y.2d 937, 440 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 423 N.E.2d ... ...
-
Peperone, Matter of
...that respondent is a specialist in the field of matrimonial law. Thus, the potential for deception is created (see, Matter of Zimmerman, 79 A.D.2d 263, 266, 438 N.Y.S.2d 400, lv. denied 54 N.Y.2d 606, 443 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 427 N.E.2d Accordingly, we conclude that respondent has violated DR 2-1......
-
Hayes v. State of New York Attorney Grievance Committee, 01-CV-0545E(Sr) (W.D.N.Y. 10/31/2001)
...the rules proscribed by that authority" No rules regarding specialization were proscribed however. Zimmerman v. Office of Grievance Committees, 438 N.Y.S.2d 400 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 1981). On October 25, 1995 plaintiff was awarded a certificate in "Civil Trial Advocacy" by the National Boar......