ILNews

Justices bar Arizona lawyer due to advertising rule violations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Out-of-state attorneys have received a fresh warning from the Indiana Supreme Court, one that specifically reiterates that everyone should know this state’s attorney advertising rules when promoting oneself as being “specialized” in a particular area of law or practicing with a “national firm.”

An Arizona lawyer who does national advertising spots received that warning in the form of a disciplinary action today, one that indefinitely bars him from practicing inside Indiana in any capacity, including temporary admission and soliciting clients.

The per curiam ruling came in the Matter of Joshua S. Parilman, No. 98S00-1012-DI-681, which involves a radio advertisement from the spring of 2010.

Hoosier radio stations broadcast an advertisement inviting listeners who might have been involved in auto accidents to contact Joshua Parilman, who practices in Arizona but isn’t licensed in Indiana. The advertisement said in part that, “Get protected with a national law firm that specializes in automobile accidents to protect your rights and stand up for you and your family.”

At least two Indiana residents responded to the ad, according to the Supreme Court ruling.

The justices noted that the lawyer’s only office is located in Phoenix and he’s not part of a national firm. He is not certified as a specialist in any field by Indiana or Arizona — neither state certifies lawyers in the area of “automobile accidents” as the ad claims. That was a violation of five Professional Conduct rules: 5.5(b)(2) that prohibits falsely representing that an attorney is admitted to practice in Indiana; 7.2(b) on using a public communication containing false, misleading, or deceptive statements; 7.2(c)(4) on making a statement about specialization when not authorized; 7.2(c)(6) on making statements that contain a representation or implication that would likely be misunderstood; and 7.4 on making a statement about specialization when not authorized.

Citing Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 30 on certification of attorney specialists, the justices noted that one of the purposes of that rule is to assure that lawyers making those claims are competent in a field of law and have met certain criteria showing that.

“An assertion by an attorney to be ‘specialized’ outside the narrow scope of this rule is contrary to the purpose of this rule and misleading,” the court wrote. “Similarly misleading is a statement to Indiana residents that an attorney is with a ‘national firm’ when the attorney’s only office is in a different state. All attorneys, including those from other states, are obligated to know and comply with this state’s ethical standards when advertising legal services to Indiana residents, whether by individualized contact, mass media, or anything in-between.”

Finding that Parilman has no disciplinary history and has cooperated with the Disciplinary Commission, the court approved the agreement the parties had reached about Parilman’s indefinite bar from Indiana practice. The sanction is similar to what other out-of-state attorneys have received in the past, and the court cited Matter of Coale, 775 N.E.2d 1079, 1085 (Ind. 2002).
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT