|
|
 |
 |
Ethics Opinion #18
|
Propriety of a direct mail solicitation by an attorney, who is also a New York City Police Officer,
stating his availability and fees for real estate closings.
|
 |
|
|
RICHMOND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
OPINION # 18
December 15, 1995
UNOFFICIAL
Anthony Barone, Esq.
43 New Dorp Plaza
Staten Island, New York 10306
Re: Lloyd Thompson
This letter is intended to provide a response to your telephone inquiry regarding the above-individual.
As I understand it, Mr. Thompson is an attorney who also happens to be an officer with the New York City Police Department. As such, he is or may be in a position to influence the work and location assignments of other police officers under his supervision. He has sent direct mailings to members of the Police Department advertising the availability of his services and his fees for real estate closings.
Although no mention of Mr. Thompson s status with the Police Department is mentioned in the advertisement, it can be reasonably assured that it is well known to a considerable number of the officers to whom these mailings were sent. When the fact that the targets of the mailings were police officers is considered, the entire circumstance could be construed as an implication that he may be in a position to influence duty assignments favorably to those who utilize his services as a lawyer and unfavorably to those who do not. If so, the implication may violate DR 9—101(c), which prohibits a lawyer from implying that he or she is able to influence a public official improperly or upon irrelevant grounds (see, N.Y.S. Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Op. #507).
The question of whether the entire circumstance creates an implication of influence on the lawyer s part is ultimately one of fact, which is beyond our ability to determine. However, the lawyer would be well advised to proceed with extreme caution in this area.
| |
Very truly yours,
Wayne M. Ozzi
Chairman, Professional
Ethics Committee |
|
|
|
 |
