Rudy Giuliani Finally Complies With New York Ethics Rule

A week ago I headlined that Rudy Giuliani had screwed up by not following changes to New York’s new attorney rules on advertising. In addition to leading in the polls for a presidential nomination, Giuliani is also a practicing New York attorney. Since these are Disciplinary Rules, they’re important.

I checked yesterday and Bracewell & Giuliani has now complied, as have some of the others on the two lists I provided. Former Mayor Ed Koch’s firm Bryan Cave, among a gazillion others with New York offices both prominent and not, is still in default. And whether New York attorneys comply with the more substantive rules than the one I picked on is anyone’s guess.

While I’ve written about many of the problems and challenges the new rules will have, the biggest one (for any rule that survives legal challenge) is likely to be enforcement. The resources since don’t exist to chase everyone down, which means that any enforcement is going to be selective, and therefore it will likely be discriminatory in some fashion.

If the old rules were thinly enforced regarding advertising and solicitation (particularly with respect to the abhorrent practice of “chasing” in personal injury matters), simply creating new ones is not likely to cure the problems that do exist.

Other links to the subject:

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Rudy Giuliani Among New York Attorneys That Violate New Ethics Rules
  2. New York’s Anti-Solicitation Rule Allows For Ethics Laundering and Must Be Modified
  3. Rudy Giuliani’s New York Judicial Appointees Lean Left
  4. Rick Santorum Joins Firm That Violates Ethics Rules
  5. Skadden Website and Others Named In Ethics Lawsuit

Tags:

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.