(Photo via Getty Images)
A State Bar of California task force is exploring whether attorneys should be permitted to split fees with nonlawyers in certain circumstances.
But while the panel’s closely scrutinized work to develop final recommendations for overhauling legal ethics rules is ongoing, the State Bar is still cracking down on attorneys who violate the prohibition on fee splitting with nonlawyers.
Lawyer James Mark Meizlik of Los Angeles will begin serving a one-year suspension on Saturday for admitting to violating Rule of Professional Conduct 1-320(A).
Meizlik rented office space from Alliance Solution Network, which provided administrative support for his firm.
However, a client of Meizlik’s paid $8,000 in legal fees to Alliance Solution Network, which kept $5,500.
“By allowing Alliance Solution Network to collect legal fees on respondent’s behalf and also allowing ASN to keep some of those fees for its own purposes,” Meizlik willfully violated the prohibition on sharing fees with nonlawyers, according to Meizlik’s settlement with the State Bar’s discipline unit.
Meizlik had been disciplined twice previously by the California Supreme Court for activities involving nonlawyers.
In 2000, he received a private reproval for violating then-Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A) for failing to perform competently and properly supervise a nonlawyer staff member.
“That non-attorney staff member then accepted the representation of a client without advising respondent,” according to the bar. “The non-attorney staff member also accepted fees from the client that he failed to pass on to respondent.”
In 2003, the Supreme Court stayed a two-year suspension of Meizlik and instead placed him on probation for admitting to misconduct involving his use of nonlawyers to provide legal services to clients.
One matter involved the same nonlawyer staff member receiving $1,000 in fees from a client and performing legal services on the client’s behalf.
“Unfortunately, the client was a defendant in a civil lawsuit, and the non-attorney was understandably not equipped to defend her,” according to the bar.
A second matter prompting the 2003 discipline featured the nonlawyer staff member working on a client’s marital dissolution while failing to be properly supervised by Meizlik.
The State Bar mentioned Meizlik’s prior discipline in explaining the punishment it sought for him.
“Since the current misconduct is respondent’s third discipline, and because the two prior instances of discipline significantly aggravate respondent’s misconduct in this instance, significant discipline is warranted,” the bar wrote.
The agreed-to discipline for his most recent misconduct supported by the state Supreme Court was a two-year suspension featuring a one-year actual suspension that will continue until Meizlik provides evidence of his rehabilitation.
Lyle Moran is a freelance writer in San Diego who handles both journalism and content writing projects. He previously reported for the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, Associated Press, and Lowell Sun. He can be reached at lmoransun@gmail.com and found on Twitter @lylemoran.