Attorney reprimand based on association with ‘Law Tigers’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court privately reprimanded a Lake County attorney Friday for making misleading communications regarding legal services and not including his office address in a public communications. The charges stem from his affiliation with a national for-profit organization that franchises its registered trademarks, including “Law Tigers,” to law firms around the country.

The anonymous respondent entered into a three-year license agreement with the American Association of Motorcycle Injury Lawyers Inc. to be an exclusive licensee for Indiana. AAMIL was obligated to make sure that all calls to the Law Tigers toll-free number seeking legal assistance in the attorney’s area were automatically routed to the firm.

The respondent could also be contacted through AAMIL’s Law Tiger’s website, which identified respondent and his firm as the Law Tigers for his territory. This website contained examples of previous results obtained by other Law Tiger attorneys and testimonials. Visitors could be put directly in contact with respondent’s firm and could bypass his firm’s website.

The respondent also distributed AAMIL-produced information, which contained a toll-free number for the Law Tigers service and its website, but did not include the address of the respondent’s firm.

The Disciplinary Commission alleged the respondent violated five rules, but the hearing officer only found respondent violated two rules. The Indiana justices agreed with the hearing officer that respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 7.1, making false or misleading communications regarding services, e.g., statistical data, information based on past performance, testimonials; and 7.2(c), failing to include an office address in a public communication.

The average viewer would not differentiate between respondent and the statements about Law Tigers on the AAMIL website and that the attorney is therefore responsible for the objectionable content on the website, the per curiam opinion states in In the Matter of: Anonymous, 45S00-1301-DI-33. It does not matter that respondent’s own website does not violate any of the rules charged.

Respondent also should have included his office address in the material he distributed.

The court found the following facts in mitigation: Respondent has no history of prior discipline in nearly 41 years of practice; he has cooperated fully with the commission; he exercised due diligence before entering into a contractual relationship with AAMIL in attempting to determine whether the relationship would violate any professional conduct rule; and his own website provided disclaimers regarding the content of the Law Tigers website.

He is ordered to pay a $250 fee and half of the costs of the proceeding.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?