https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/24/judge-questions-constitutionality-doge-elon-musk-00205866

Serious question: is DOGE legally authorized? Does Musk have any legal authority to act?

If someone is fired, that person could sue on the ground that it has no legal authority.

I would argue that it should have been authorized by Congress. It wasn’t.

Why does an unelected and unconfirmed Musk have the right to terminate an employee?

The ARDC Review Board recently recommended a four-month suspension of an attorney for breaches of the standard of care in criminal defense cases. The lawyer failed to file a motion to suppress in one case. Successor counsel filed such a motion and the State’s Attorney dropped the case. The trial of this disciplinary case required the ARDC to retain expert witnesses in criminal defense practice and to have those witnesses testify at a hearing. The court found violations of Rule 1.1 (competence) and Rule 1.5 (excessive fee charged). The Review Board recommended a four-month suspension. The lawyer failed to file a motion to suppress in one matter and failed to do a competent job in an appeal brief in another matter. 2022PR00018.

The respondent recommended that one client plead guilty instead of filing a motion to suppress an inculpatory statement made before he received Miranda warnings. The client was to receive a four-year prison sentence. Eventually, the respondent withdrew, and new counsel filed a motion to suppress. The motion was granted, and the charges were dismissed. The ARDC introduced testimony that failing to file a motion to suppress the inculpatory statement was a breach of the standard of care.

The ARDC used the testimony of an expert witness, a criminal defense lawyer, and had successor counsel for the client whose inculpatory statements were not suppressed also testify as a fact witness.

This is a rare case where a disciplinary authorities seek disbarment for a prosecutor for failing to supervise her office. Much of the opinion discusses a number of errors made in the Barry Morphew case. In the Morphew case, the prosecution of Barry for allegedly murdering his wife was bogged down by prosecutorial errors, resulting in the dismissal of the case without prejudice. The panel found fault with the prosecutor’s public statements and her effort to investigate the judge for domestic violence.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/da-should-be-disbarred-for-absence-at-the-helm-that-led-to-case-running-aground-board-says

Lawyers rarely seem to win claims based on negative online reviews. I advise lawyers to read the review, make a neutral comment if appropriate, or just ignore the bad reviews. Almost no lawyer is immune from criticism. Simply accept it and move on. In my experience, most negative reviews occur when I decline a case. The prospective client’s disappointment is reasonable.

Amaro v. DeMichael, 2024 Ohio 3290 is a case where the Ohio Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit filed by a lawyer against a defendant who allegedly posted dozens of fake reviews about the lawyer on the Google My Business webpage.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the case. The opinion summarizes the allegations of the Amended Complaint as follows:

{¶5} Beginning in February 2022 and continuing through June of 2022, appellees engaged in an attack intended to maliciously defame, harass, and destroy appellant’s reputation by flooding appellant’s GMB page with fake reviews. In publishing the fake reviews, appellees fraudulently concealed and misrepresented their identities by using fake names to publish false narratives about negative experiences doing business with appellant. Pursuant to Google’s Terms of Service, which appellees agreed to when creating each individual Google user account, contributions “must be based on real experiences and information * * * [a]nd deliberately fake content, copied or stolen photos, off-topic reviews, defamatory language, personal attacks, and unnecessary or incorrect content are all in violation of [Google’s] policy.” Further, “content should reflect [the user’s] genuine experience at the location and should not be posted must to manipulate a place’s ratings.” Finally, the Terms of Service state, “[d]on’t post fake content, don’t post the same content multiple times, and don’t post content for the same place from multiple accounts.” The fake reviews posted by appellees are designed and intended to manipulate Google’s rating system for appellant’s business. The fake reviews falsely purport to have been authored by actual clients of appellant and include false statements that are specifically intended to destroy the public’s trust in appellant to provide ethical and competent legal representation.

{¶6} Between February of 2022 and June of 2022, approximately 100 fake reviews were left on appellant’s GMB page, each by a separate Google user account bearing the name of an individual who has never been a client or potential client of appellant. Appellant listed each of the fake reviews posted by appellees in its complaint. The numbers next to the reviews correspond to the paragraph numbers contained in the complaint….

{¶7} The complaint avers appellant consulted its records and confirmed that none of the names associated with the Google accounts identified in the complaint are actual or potential clients of the firm. Appellant also avers in the complaint that: the reviews are false because the individuals who created them were never clients or potential clients of appellant’s firm; the fake reviews are manufactured to create the false impression that there is widespread customer dissatisfaction with the services appellant provides to its clients; the fake reviews lower appellant’s otherwise stellar reputation and injure appellant in its profession and trade; the fake reviews were published close in time to one another and were written in similar styles; many of the user accounts were created close in time to one another; the fake reviews and their cumulative effect on appellant’s GMB star rating have been viewed and read by numerous individuals who have visited appellant’s GMB page, including clients and potential clients; and appellant sustained damage as a result of the fake reviews, including a noticeable decrease in inquiries and client sign ups since the fake reviews began being published.

{¶8} User data produced by Google in response to a subpoena issued by appellant indicated that an IP address used to post the negative reviews at issue was assigned exclusively to the residence of appellees.

The plaintiff carefully listed each fake review in the Amended Complaint. The trial court held that the reviews were protected opinion and dismissed the Amended Complaint.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that some of the reviews were not protected statements of opinion. The court sorted the reviews into separate categories and then made rulings by category of fake review.

{¶40} Considering the factors, we find, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the Star-Only Reviews, the Wholly Positive Reviews, and the Poor Communication Reviews are not actionable because they are protected opinion.

{¶41} Upon our de novo review, we find all four factors indicate the No Communication Reviews and the Client Language Reviews are not protected opinion. Because we must accept all of the allegations in appellant’s complaint as true, we find, as to the No Communication Reviews and the Client Language Reviews, appellees have created and posted false reviews that contain statements describing a fictitious lack of follow-up, a fictitious lack of communication, or a fictitious client relationship, that are all readily capable of being proved true or false.

{¶42} Accordingly, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the statements at issue (No Communication Reviews and Client Language Reviews) are not protected opinion. See Romeo & Juliette Laser Hair Removal, Inc. v. Assara I LLC,2016 WL 815205 (S.D.N.Y); RingCentral, Inc. v. Nextivia, Inc., 2021 WL 2476879 (N.D. California) (85 fake negative reviews accusing plaintiff of providing poor services was not protected opinion); ZL Technologies v. DOES 1-7, 13 Cal.App.5th 603 (2017) (1st Dist.) (each review listed positive points, but also included specific factual assertions capable of being proved true or false, so they are actionable); Lowell v. Wright, 369 Or. 806 (2022) (negative google review not protected opinion when comments are factual matters with truth values); Thibodeaux v. Starx Investment Holdings, Inc., 2021 WL 4927417 (Texas) (reviews posted on websites alleging “never received a phone call” are verifiable statements of fact, not protected opinion); The Fireworks Restoration Co., LLC v. Hosto, 371 S.W.3d 83 (E.D. Missouri) (fabricated customer reviews posted on Google are not protected opinion).

I agree with the opinion. Posting dozens of reviews of a law firm under a fake name should not be protected opinion. Had the defendants posted one review based on their experiences with the lawyer, the court would have affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint.

If you have a question about a negative review of your law firm, do not hesitate to contact me or another experienced lawyer. Getting feedback on your situation from someone uninvolved in the dispute is often helpful before you take any action. Also, never act out of anger or frustration because you will inevitably make bad decisions.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

A lawyer in Maine has been suspended for one year (suspended) for failing to take CLE courses. What he allegedly did was to have someone else take the courses for him. The suspension will not take effect if the attorney takes the courses and meets some other conditions. The lawyer should be thankful the disciplinary authorities were in a forgiving mood.

If you have a legal ethics question or issue, do not hesitate to contact me or other experienced ethics counsel.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

https://wnyuz.com/2023/05/27/heres-what-happens-when-your-lawyer-uses-chatgpt/

This is a news story about a lawyer who used Chat GPT for legal research and found out that the research was invented, not real legal research. He apologized to the Court. The court has not decided what to do about the invented research. Obviously, the machines will get better at legal research in coming years, but we have to be smart enough to check their work and second guess their conclusions. In a complicated fact setting there is no possibility that Chat GPT will be a match for solid legal work, at least for ten years. Chat GPT may give you an idea or two, but make sure to research the cases yourself and think about the facts before you push submit on a brief.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

New York has disbarred a lawyer who was convicted of conspiracy to commit arson and possession of an unregistered destructive device in violation of 18 USC §§ 371 and 844(i) and 26 USC §§ 5861(d) and 5861(f). The device was used to damage an unoccupied New York police car during the George Floyd protests. Matter of Mattis 2022 NY Slip Op 06438.