If you’ve lived in Reno for any length of time then you certainly have heard the name Laub and Laub. They’ve done a great job of marketing themselves all over town, with billboards, tv ads and yellow pages. He has the “walk in Wednesdays” and on his billboards you always see Joe with his sleeves rolled up ready to go. His jingle gets stuck in my head sometimes and I seek out my children so I can hear the Barney song instead. I’ve heard various things about Joe Laub over the years so I thought it was time to do some research and see what the rest of the community has to say about him.
The first place I go is to Google of course. Almost 75% of people use Google as their search engine these days. I can certainly remember the days of Altavista (it is still around, i just checked) but I digress. I put the search terms “Joe Laub” in Google and the first 4 listings are for his firms website. One of the first sites that come up is from the Yahoo Local and there is a review listed on there. Here’s what it says:
by JenniferW
07/21/2010
they do not return phone calls. Do not work for there client, they say they are there for you but are not. more interested in geting more people to come them, then actually helping people who have paid them in full. Do not let this firm represent you.
The 5th results certainly caught my eye. It’s from a group called www.doctorlawyerwatch.com. I love the site as they are doing the same kind of thing that we are but have included doctors. What comes up is quite interesting. I’m going to include the entire transcript at the end of this post since it is a discipline notice from the Nevada Supreme Court from 2002. Here’s what the heading reads:
IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF JOE M. LAUB.
No. 86322
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
January 9, 2002, Filed
DISPOSITION: [*1] Attorney suspended from the practice of law for six months; conditions and costs imposed.JUDGES: Young, J., Shearing, J., Agosti, J., Rose, J., Leavitt, J., Becker, J. Maupin, C.J., dissenting.
I can’t imagine that it’s a good thing to be suspended from the practice of law for six months but certainly that is something you will need to decide if you choose to use him for your services. The discipline notice is very interesting so I certainly encourage you to read it.
I keep scrolling down through the results and down at the bottom there is a place where Google suggests search terms that are popular. One of them says “Joe Laub complaints”. I’ll go there after I scroll through a few more pages of results. One site pops up called legalnewsreno.com. I check it out and it’s basically a website that is meant to not look like a promotional site for Laub and Laub but clearly it is, with tons of advertisements for the firm and not much else. Here again is the reason our site is very valuable in my opinion. We’re not trying to masquerade and make it seem like we support different attorneys. You have to make sure that you’re very discerning in your research because online marketing has become very savvy. There are companies out there that will publish fake reviews just to try to cover up the bad ones. Be careful and always call us at 800-748-5590 if you have some questions about a lawyer.
Ok, back to the digging. I do see some statement on his own website about how he has volunteered or donated for many community service organizations, including the Special Olympics, City of Hope and Ronald McDonald House. I think that’s great but I also think that’s to be expected from someone of his reputation in the community. It still is something we should thank him for. One of the results is for a website called www.merchantcircle.com and there are some reviews of Joe there. They say the following, “Thanks for answering my legal questions, your service is excellent in my book, fast and easy….” by Lance from Truckee and “Thanks for connecting, what more can I ask” by Injury Lawyer in Las Vegas. That seems a little strange so I click on the name Injury Lawyer in Las Vegas and it takes me to a profile of an attorney by the name of Howard Roimtam in Las Vegas. I can’t exactly say that another attorney’s recommendation like this counts since we have no idea of their relationship.
I don’t see much from the Google results that I think I can rely on. I’m going to try the Google “Joe Laub complaints” suggested search and see what comes up. The first few results are tied to the original letter of discipline as stated above. There is one particular site that draws my attention and it’s from the www.nvbar.org, which of course is the Nevada State Bar. They are responsible for overseeing all attorneys and their conduct so we take this information as legal gospel. The link is to May 2008 Bar counsel report. It lists any kind of goings on in regards to possible ethics violations. The information listed regarding Joe Laub is a follow up to the Jan. 2002 determination. Here’s what it says:
In re: Joe M. Laub
Bar No: 3664
Docket No: 49211
Filed March 5, 2008
ORDER IMPOSING PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Supreme Court upholds findings that Laub over-delegated responsibilities to nonlawyer staff and failed to properly supervise his Carson City office, resulting in the unauthorized practice of law by Laub’s paralegal. While additional steps must be taken to ensure adequate supervision in the Carson City office, Laub had already taken significant steps to change office policy, warranting a reduced sanction of a Public Reprimand.
This is an automatic review of a Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel’s recommendation that attorney Joe M. Laub be suspended for six months and one day (thus requiring reinstatement proceedings under SCR 116) for violations of RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants) and RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law). We agree that the violations found by the panel are supported by clear and convincing evidence, but we conclude that the recommended discipline is too harsh and that a public reprimand, together with payment of the disciplinary proceeding’s costs, is sufficient to serve the purposes of attorney discipline.
I’m including the rest of the facts because it sheds a lot of light on their office and these are things you need to know if you choose to hire the firm.
Laub was suspended for six months in 2002. Two patterns of conduct formed the primary basis for this discipline, one of which involved Laub’s over-delegation to nonlawyer staff. Evidence in the previous case revealed that Laub routinely permitted employees who were not licensed in Nevada to conduct initial client meetings, including making decisions about whether to represent potential clients and advising clients regarding the merits of their cases. The evidence further demonstrated that Laub’s employees performed almost all work on the clients’ cases with little or no supervision by a Nevada-licensed attorney. In some instances, these employees were paralegals, and in others, they were lawyers admitted elsewhere, but not in Nevada.
During and after Laub’s suspension, which was effective from January to July 2002, the firm instituted several policies in an effort to ensure compliance with the rules of professional conduct. First, only lawyers could conduct an initial consultation and make the decision whether to represent a client. Next, the firm developed a “dos and don’ts” flyer, which in pertinent part requests clients to schedule consultations with an attorney approximately every 30 days. Also, staff was instructed that any legal questions must be addressed to a lawyer. Another practice that was commenced involved weekly meetings between the lawyers and staff to review the firm’s cases. Finally, the firm hired additional lawyers for these duties, apparently doubling the firm’s number of Nevada-licensed attorneys. But these policies were not formally reduced to writing, and no employees’ manual was prepared that collected the firm’s policies.
Laub’s firm currently maintains four offices, located in South Lake Tahoe, Truckee, Reno, and Carson City. Laub testified that his usual practice is to spend the mornings in the Carson City office and the afternoons in the Reno office. The Carson City office does not have any other lawyer assigned to it on a permanent basis; rather, Laub has contracted with a Carson City lawyer to be available to meet with clients and prospective clients in the afternoons when Laub is in Reno. The permanent full-time staff in the Carson City office consists of a paralegal, who was admitted to the Florida bar in 1968 but is not admitted to the State Bar of Nevada, and his wife, who serves as a receptionist and legal secretary.
The grievant in this matter, Leslie Carlen, was injured when her car was rear-ended by another vehicle. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital and was then released. The next day, a Friday, a friend referred her to Laub’s firm. Carlen called and spoke with the receptionist and made an appointment for 2:00 p.m. that afternoon.
The receptionist testified that Carlen was fairly upset during the phone call, and that she insisted on seeing someone that day and did not wish to wait through the weekend. But a few minutes before 2:00 p.m. (well after Carlen would have left for the appointment), the contract attorney called and said that he would be unable to keep the appointment. The receptionist attempted to contact Laub in the Reno office to see if he could return to meet with Carlen but was unable to reach him.
When Carlen arrive for the appointment, the receptionist, who was aware of the firm’s policy that prospective clients meet only with attorneys, felt sorry for Carlen and did not tell her that the appointment could not be kept and instead brought her to the paralegal, introducing him as the office manager and paralegal.
The paralegal also testified that he made an exception and met with Carlen because she seemed stressed and in pain, and he did not want to make her wait until the following week to speak to someone. He stated that he thought it would be permissible for him to meet with the client on this one occasion, obtain information about the case, transmit the information to Laub the following Monday, and then arrange a meeting between Carlen and Laub in the near future if Laub believed that the representation should be undertaken. He stated that he simply took notes about her accident, her insurance coverage, and her medical treatment to date. He also indicated that he showed her the firm’s contingency fee agreement but did not explain any of its terms, and she signed it. According to the paralegal, this fee agreement was not signed, at that point, by anyone at the firm. The paralegal gave Carlen a new client’s folder that included business cards for him and Laub, the “dos” and “don’ts” flyer, and a copy of the contingency fee agreement with only her signature.
On the following Monday, the paralegal met with Laub and went over notes concerning his meeting with Carlen, but he did not tell Laub that the contract attorney was not present for the consultation. After discussing Carlen’s case, according to the paralegal, Laub signed the contingency fee agreement and the initial representation letters, including a letter to Carlen, which was mailed to Carlen along with the signed contingency fee agreement.
Notably, according to the paralegal, the contract attorney, and Laub, nothing about Laub’s Monday-morning meeting with the paralegal was different from the usual situation when the contract attorney performed an initial consultation: the paralegal customarily attended such consultations and took notes, and the following business day, he would review the notes with Laub. The contract attorney routinely had no direct contact with Laub regarding these initial consultations; only if a case presented an unusual circumstance would the contract attorney directly discuss an initial consultation with Laub.
According to Carlen, she was not told that the paralegal was not a Nevada-licensed lawyer, and she assumed during their meeting that he was a lawyer. She indicated that he discussed her case with her, told her about the statute of limitations, went over the contingency fee agreement with her, and mentioned that she had good coverage under her own auto insurance policy that would pay for her medical expenses until she obtained a settlement from the responsible driver. She also testified that Joe Laub’s signature was already on the contingency fee agreement that she signed.
Carlen terminated Laub’s services in March 2006, because she was dissatisfied that the firm would not handle her property damage claim; rather, it limited its representation to her bodily injury claim. She then retained new counsel, who informed her that the paralegal was not a Nevada-licensed attorney and encouraged her to file a disciplinary complaint against Laub. She did so, with her new counsel’s assistance, in late May or early June 2006.
Laub did not learn that the contract attorney had not been present until the bar grievance was received in June 2006. Laub admonished both the receptionist and the paralegal for their conduct once he learned of it and emphasized to all staff the importance of having attorneys conduct initial consultations and advise clients of their rights.
In response to a panel member’s question about why Laub’s policies, set in place after his 2002 suspension, were not written or compiled into an employee manual, Laub stated that most of his staff have been with the firm for over 10 years, and that he was confident that they were aware of the policies. He acknowledged that his protective measures had not worked in this instance and accepted responsibility for the failure, but he asserted that except for this one incident, the measures implemented since 2002 have adhered to ethical requirements. He argues that if any discipline was warranted, then it should be only a reprimand.
The panel unanimously found that Laub had violated RPC 5.3 and RPC 5.5. As to the recommended discipline, four members voted for the six-month-plus-one-day suspension, while the remaining member voted for a six-month suspension, which would not require reinstatement proceedings.
In determining the appropriate discipline, the panel considered Laub’s 2002 six-month suspension and recommended the next step: a suspension that would require reinstatement proceedings. This automatic review followed.
DISCUSSION
As we recognized in In re Stuhff, “[t]hough persuasive, the [disciplinary panel’s] findings and recommendation are not binding on this court. This court must review the record de novo and exercise its independent judgment to determine whether and what type of discipline is warranted.7 To support the imposition of discipline, the panel’s findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.8”
The panel concluded that Laub had violated two ethical rules, RPC 5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer employees) and RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law). We consider each in turn. RPC 5.3 sets forth a lawyer’s obligations concerning nonlawyer employees, and requires the lawyer to take reasonable measures to ensure that a nonlawyer employee acts in conformity with professional conduct rules:
With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer:
(a) A partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possess comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer;
(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and
(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:
1. The lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
2. The lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
The Kansas Supreme Court has held that this rule requires a supervising lawyer to ensure that nonlawyer employees do not give legal advice to clients.9 The Colorado Supreme Court has reached a similar conclusion.10 But the mere fact that an employee acted improperly does not necessarily result in lawyer discipline; the lawyer is not per se vicariously responsible for an employee’s misconduct.11
Here, the unrebutted testimony of Laub, the receptionist, and the paralegal is that Laub was unaware that the firm’s policies had not been followed in Carlen’s case until he received the bar complaint. It thus appears that any violation was not willful, and also that Laub did not ratify or condone his employees’ conduct.
On the other hand, Laub could have done more to ensure that his employees conformed their conduct to the required standard. Written policies or a written employee handbook setting forth the policies and the reasons for them would have resulted in a useful tool for employees faced with the dilemma present in this case, and moreover, having these policies in writing would have reinforced their importance. Also, it appears that the Carson City office’s practice for initial consultations was flawed. Although the contract attorney in almost all instances met with the client when Laub could not, and so a lawyer was available to answer any questions the client might have, the contract attorney then had no further role in the case, unless at some point he was assigned the litigation for that client. By failing to require any communication between the contract attorney, who conducted the initial consultation, and Laub, who after that point assumed primary responsibility for Carson City files, the firm’s general practice allowed the instant case to “fall through the cracks.” Had the contract attorney and Laub conferred regularly about the initial consultations performed, then Laub would have been aware that Carlen had not met with a lawyer, and he could have scheduled an appointment immediately to review her case. It thus appears that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel’s finding that Laub violated RPC 5.3.
RPC 5.5 provides, in pertinent part, “A lawyer shall not…[a]ssist another person in the unauthorized practice of law.” Here, the paralegal was not a licensed Nevada lawyer, and so he was prohibited from giving legal advice. While the paralegal maintained that he did not give Carlen any legal advice, but only took notes on her case to discuss with Laub, the panel apparently found Carlen’s testimony on this point to be more credible: that the paralegal discussed the statute of limitations, her insurance coverage, and had her sign the contingency fee agreement, which at least in her mind resulted in the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. It thus appears that the panel properly found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the paralegal’s conduct overstepped permissible bounds, and that Laub’s failure to properly supervise the Carson City office in this instance contributed to the paralegal’s unauthorized practice of law, thereby violating RPC 5.5.
It appears, however, that the recommended sanction is overly harsh. The panel’s statement of why the majority decided to impose a lengthy suspension requiring reinstatement proceedings is quite short, and it simply indicates that the panel believed that it should go a step further than the six-month 2002 suspension. But the 2002 suspension was based on significant misconduct in addition to Laub’s violation of the supervision and unauthorized practice rules. Also, under the firm’s policies at the time of the conduct leading to the 2002 suspension, initial client intake was performed almost exclusively by non-lawyers, and many clients had little or no contact with a lawyer during the entire time their cases were being handled. As a result, the unauthorized practice of law was the firm’s norm.
The evidence in this matter indicates that, while additional protective steps must be taken to ensure adequate supervision in the Carson City office, significant steps have been taken by the firm since the 2002 suspension and have resulted in much greater attorney oversight. We therefore conclude that a lengthy suspension is not necessary in this case. Rather, a public reprimand is sufficient to serve the purposes of attorney discipline.
Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand attorney Joe M. Laub for violations of RPC 5.3 and RPC 5.4. Also, Laub shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
To be continued in another post……….