Bank Lawyer's Blog

The "Lessons" of Wells Fargo

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves
--William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2

There's been a lot of ink spilled over the past week about Wells Fargo's cross-selling culture paving the road to perdition with bricks of fool's gold. As might be expected, enemies of big banks took the time to prove, once again, the truth of Rahm Emanuel's observation that politicians (which includes lobbyists, by the way) should never let a crisis go to waste. The ICBA's Cam Fine was in high dudgeon when he spewed bile on "non-community banks" and their nefarious ways. He might have overlooked the fact that during the savings and loan and banking crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the massive bank failures that followed the 2008 meltdown, plenty of smaller bankers were exposed as being filled with the same hubris and character flaws that apparently haunt the canyons of Wall Street. It doesn't make Wells Fargo's failures any less reprehensible, but sometimes riding a high horse causes you to miss the low fence up ahead.

Dan Berger, head credit union shill for the NAFCU, blamed the whole sordid affair on the fact that commercial banks have shareholders, which, he implies, incentivizes them to make money any way they can, including by fraudulent means. He apparently argues that because credit unions are member owned, therefore, economic incentives are not present to make profits that would be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends or retained to enhance stock prices. These disincentives mean that most community banks, faud-wise, are cleaner than a pre-Vatican II convent. As another credit apologist put it, "friends don't let friends use a commercial bank." With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Placing the blame on the capitalist system, the profit motive, and the private ownership of the means of financing the means of production is likely to win over some Bernie Sanders supporters or those seeking a cult to join now that Elvis has left the building, and that might be a winning way of increasing membership. Adam Smith, on the other hand, is spinning in his grave at a speed usually achieved only by the Large Hadron Collider. Equally offended might most other for-profit publicly- and privately-owned businesses in the United States, who have shareholders, partners, or LLC members, to whom management and employees are accountable for producing net income (after taxes) and who don't engage in fraudulent activities to produce that profit. That would include all those small businesses that credit unions are trying to get the authority to "bank." So, good luck with that marketing ploy.

I started out in representing financial institutions by taking an in-house position with a large mutual savings institution in 1977. Unlike a credit union, it actually had to pay taxes, and its customers weren't subject to a field-of-membership requirement (a "field of dreams" that credit union advocates have steadily expanded throughout the decades), but the legal "owners" of the mutual institution were similar to those in a credit union: the depositors in and borrowers from that institution. I spent four years there, and in that time, I saw plenty of fat and happy executives and employees who, having no more than a handful of "owners" who actually paid attention to the business, and no shareholders who might demand efficiency in operation and the provision of competitively-priced, market-attractive products and services that would generate a decent return-on-equity, contented themselves with a daisy-chain of "don't-rock-the-boat" policies that favored nice incomes, regular hours, decent expense accounts, and a not-exactly-tukus-busting work ethic that left time for plenty of convention-attending and mid-afternoon tee times. Each business model has its own incentives and disincentives, but the success of either model in any individual case depends on the quality of the human beings that run them.

I read one commenter (I cannot locate his or her comment now) to one of the articles I read on Wells Fargo's failures, that the root cause is not a legal compliance failure but a moral failure. I agree, although I'd paint with a broader brush.

According to a Wall Street Journal article that delves deeply into the Wells Fargo "culture," the policies and procedures adopted at the highest levels of the bank did not condone the vilified behavior of many employees. On the other hand, there was obviously a massive failure to enforce those policies on a consistent basis throughout the bank, over a sustained period of time. The article is rife with incidents recounted by former employees, including one where  senior management in the sales area warned employees at a regional meeting not to engage in opening false accounts, yet another managers, in one case a branch manager, telling employees to ignore that advice. Moreover, even though senior management is now attempting to throw lower-level employees under the bus, they also admit that the bank fired over 5,000 employees over a period of several years for engaging in fraudulent behavior. How could such activities continue over such an extended period of time without raising red flags that demanded immediate, systemic changes? My guess is that those red flags were raised, that compliance personnel did their job, and that foot-dragging and opposition from the retail side of the bank stiff-armed a quick and comprehensive response. Since the CFPB, the OCC, the City of Los Angeles, and (my secret sources inform me) the Vatican are, and will continue to be, examining the depths of the bank's nether regions with electron proctoscopes, I think the odds are better than even that more details will be forthcoming and more heads will roll (the latest, apparently, being the head of retail banking, who is retiring).

At the bottom level, however, no matter what the pressures or incentives, the fact that so many sources who contributed to the linked article and others I have read on the subject, were former Wells Fargo employees who left in disgust at the pressure to do the wrong thing, indicates that this fraud could not have been perpetrated for so long and so extensively without a character issue, from the ground floor to the roof. Every day I toiled in Big Law, the pressure was there, effectively if not expressly communicated, to "make your hours." Padding hours and churning the file pressures were always present, but it takes a failure of personal virtue to allow them to succeed. Executives who placed that pressure on subordinates, and those in authority who looked the other way, bear a greater culpability. However, no one at Wells Fargo who participated in these activities is off the hook.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
--Edmund Burke

Doing Well By Doing Good

Since it is the season to be jolly, let's focus one of our last posts of the year on things that banks, and credit unions, do that might even cause Bernie Sanders to throw them a grudging compliment.

First up is Gesa Credit Union of Washington State, which lat year sponsored students at a local culinary center in preparing Thanksgiving dinner for residents and staff at a local teen homeless shelter. This year, the credit union approached the center's instructor with a proposal to do the same thing, only this year for Christmas. The students jumped all over it. This is called "proactive agape."

Next in line is Virginia-based community bank Southern Bank. They're the corporate sponsor for a Hampton Roads television station's annual "Operation Christmas List." The station collects and delivers toys to local children whose parents don't have the money to afford much more than a lump of coal. This beats the polar opposite type of story sometimes featured this time of year, especially over the past seven years, about a heartless bank kicking some family out of its home and into a snow bank (notwithstanding Fannie Mae's policy of suspending evictions for the holidays.

Finally, we have another Virginia community bank, Union Bank and Trust, teaming up with a Richmond-based television station and a local bookstore to give a little girl whose family just moved out of homelessness what I think is a priceless gift: a library. That will be a gift that will keep on giving.

If good publicity results from these efforts, then good for all concerned. Community banks and credit unions are part of the fabric of local community life, as are so many other local businesses. Their numbers are dwindling year by year. Whether or not you believe me, you'll miss them when they're gone.

Merry Christmas.

Compounding Your Errors

Because we've been relentless in our coverage of Bank of America's repeated foreclosure faux pas over the years, it's only fair to welcome to the slap-fest BofA's erstwhile partner in slime, CitiMortgage. Like the bank America love's to call its own, Citi also knows that when it comes to generating bad publicity for banks in general and big banks in particular, nothing works better than breaking into and looting a house the bank does not own.

Until this year, Honesdale attorney Jeffrey S. Treat thought he had seen everything in the wild world of home restoration, flipping and landlording.

CitiMortgage and its agents confused his handyman’s special — a small, long-vacant foreclosure he purchased for cash at 1526A Thackery Ave. in Scranton — with a home it foreclosed on two doors down.

In several visits from June through July, the bank cleared Treat’s building of its contents, including tools, building materials and replacement windows.

The bank changed the locks and crudely padlocked and posted the home.

This came as a great shock to Treat, who had no mortgage on the home and no relationship with Citi.

Unable to reach an agreement with the bank or the company that did the property clean-out, Safeguard Properties of Valley View, Ohio, Treat sued them and CitiMortgage Inc. of O’Fallon, Missouri, for the $3,500 estimated worth of what they removed and $5,000 for trespassing and damages.

A spokesman for Citi said Safeguard Properties and Treat are trying to resolve the issue. But Treat is past negotiating and is preparing for court.

“I don’t live there, and it was just tools, lumber and whatnot, but it’s just bizarre that this would happen,” he said. “It’s my place and all these people were in there and they took my stuff. Yeah, I feel violated.”

If you're going to pick on an individual to abuse in this fashion, who better than a lawyer? Sure, people love to loathe attorneys, yet as a group, they have the annoying habit of not being intimidated by big institutions, knowing their way around a courthouse, and, most unfortunately of all for giant financial institutions, matching bankers tit-for-tat when it comes to displaying your inner A-hole.

Not that Jeff didn't have provocation to sue the beatitudes off of Citi, you understand.

All summer, there were subtle and not-so-subtle clues that a big bank was about to pounce on his property. Treat tried to warn everyone, but never suspected a confused mortgagor would trespass, break into his property and remove everything in it.

It started when he found oversized sheriff’s sale notice on the house, citing a CitiMortgage foreclosure. He called the big law firm handling CitiMortgage’s foreclosures.

“You got the wrong house,” he said. He researched Citi’s actual foreclosure, found the property they wanted was two doors up, which he said was in much better shape than his dusty gut-job. He thought that was the end of it.

He continued working on the property, often with help from his father-in-law, who is retired and enjoys the activity. Through the summer, the grass was mowed regularly.

Treat concluded his father-in-law was taking care of the lawn.

His father-in-law thought Treat was taking care of the lawn.

They never discussed it.

Turns out, it was probably CitiMortgage and Safeguard Properties.

“That shows you what kind of guy I am,” Treat said. “I didn’t even thank my father-in-law for the work I thought he was doing, otherwise I would have known that Citibank was treating my property as though it was theirs.” He gets wind of people on his property and makes a visit, finding the locks changed, the home cleared and a padlocks attached from the outside.

The neighbors watched it happened, thinking Treat fell behind on his payments.

Treat broke into his own property, saw his stuff was gone and replaced by a Safeguard sign-in clipboard where employees logged their visits and what they had done. Treat’s tools, replacement windows, even bags of cement were gone. Treat put up a sign to CitiMortgage and Safeguard, telling them to that it is not their house.

The bank's contractor, who stole Treat's tools, could have settled up by just paying a premium on the "conservative estimate" Treat gave it for the value of those tools. Instead, it decided that nickel-and-diming was the way to best address the "reputational risk" that the federal bank regulators claim is of major concern when a bank engages in questionable activities, like processing payments for an online dating service or a payday lender. We assume that breaking and entering might also qualify as "high risk" of damaging a bank's reputation.

Treat sued them for five large in small claims court.

Citi could still have cut its reputational losses by cutting Treat a check. I mean, going to small claims court when the only issue involves an amount that Treat claims is "not even an hour of fuel in a corporate jet" seems like bullying the little guy, especially when the question of liability is cut-and-dried. However, according to the linked article, both the bank and its contractor have hired lawyers to contest the proceeding. I hope they show up at the right courthouse. Their track record does not give one encouragement. I suggest the use of a seeing eye dog.

You have to wonder who at the bank is making the judgment call to slug this one out. Treat's getting all the favorable press, and whether or not he gets the full monty financially when he gets his day in court, he's already exacted his pound of flesh in the court of public opinion. The negative publicity hit has got to be costing Citi more than simply paying the guy a few grand and keeping this embarrassing episode out of the newspapers.

Things could have been worse, I suppose. Treat could have had a pet parrot in that house.

CFPB Cracks Down On "Marketing Services Agreements"

One of the first posts I inflicted on an unspecting public, way back in 2004, when "W" was King and the bubble had not yet burst, was a rant about bogus referral arrangements that violated the anti-kickback provisions of Section 8 of RESPA. And although HUD itself once stubbed its toe over Section 8's threshold, both HUD and state regulators have been all over various schemes that attempt an end-run around RESPA's prohibition on referral fees.

With the late-night creation of Franken-Dodd, we now have the gentle ministrations of everyone's favorite benign Grandpa of a federal regulator, the CFPB, applied to Section 8, and as a recent MoFo alert advises, CFPB promises to be (in the lyrics of Jimmy Webb) a "harsh mistress."

 The CFPB entered into a Consent Order with a title company (Lighthouse) on the basis that "marketing service agreements" for "advertising" with real estate companies were, in reality, disguised referral fee arrangements. Lenders who attempt similar arrangements with real estate-related businesses, in which compensation can be related to the volume of loan business referred to the lender should take a lesson.

As evidence of the violations, the CFPB cited the following:

• Lighthouse failed to determine, or document a method for a determination of, the fair market value of the services it received under the MSAs.
• Lighthouse determined the fees it paid under the MSA, in part, based on the number and value of referrals received by the related counterparty.
• Lighthouse did not monitor whether it was receiving the services for which it contracted.
• The number of referrals provided to Lighthouse by counterparties was significantly greater if Lighthouse had entered into an MSA with the counterparty.

In sum, the CFPB asserted that Lighthouse was unable to provide a legitimate fair market basis for its pricing under the MSAs and believed that there was a strong correlation between the pricing for each counterparty and the number of referrals Lighthouse received per the subject MSA’s.

Lighthouse paid a $200,000 penalty and the CFPB imposed a $5.00 cap on the value of any consideration that the title company to "referral sources." A fiver isn't likely going to generate beaucoup business for Lighthouse, is my completely obvious conclusion.

MoFo's "takeaways" are insightful.

• As expected, the CFPB will look beyond the face of an MSA and consider the facts behind implementation, performance, and payments as between the settlement service provider and the referring party.
• The CFPB in the Consent Order created a broad definition of “marketing services agreement,” a term that is not defined in RESPA.
• The CFPB emphasized that an objective determination of “fair market value” of marketing services to be rendered must be performed with written documentation of the determination that is retained and available for review.
• In the fair market value analysis, the CFPB frowned on the settlement service provider’s consideration of what other title companies in the market were willing to pay to referral sources for marketing services.
• The necessity of monitoring MSA performance to ensure that services contracted for are actually delivered.
• MSAs that result in more business being referred to the settlement service provider than is referred by the same referral sources not pursuant to MSAs provides evidence of a violation of RESPA §8(a). How the CFPB determined these differences is not clear from the Consent Order.

Any real estate services businesses that are starting to realize that when the CFPB is on the case, there will likely be no way to ever run this dodge again get a gold star for "perception." The last takeaway asks how the CFPB could have determined how much business is referred by the same source with a "marketing services agreement" and without such an agreement. I assume the authors of the alert are displaying a dry sense of humor. As everyone knows, with the CFPB being such a self-professed "data-driven" regulator, they'll always be able to find pertinent data, even if the hiding place is an orifice on their own body.

I don't think this is the beginning of the end of these types of arrangements. I think this the end. Period.

The again, there are always those living in caves who always are the last to hear. Thus, there may be a few more Consent Orders before "marketing services agreement" as ingenuously disguised referral arrangements finally become extinct.

Wal-Mart Is Go-Go On GoBank

Not satisfied with prepaid cards from Green Dot or Bluebird Accounts via American Express, Wal-Mart's march into the banking business is now all the way into checking account territory.

Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, is teaming up with Green Dot, known for its prepaid payment cards, to supply checking accounts to almost anyone over 18 who passes an ID check.

Daniel Eckert, senior vice president at Walmart, said on Tuesday that the accounts would be available nationwide by the end of October. The accounts are intended to be low-cost alternatives to traditional bank checking accounts, with no fees for overdrafts or bounced checks and no minimum account balance.

In comparison, a basic checking account at Citibank charges $12 if a check is returned and $34 for overdrafts.

The new accounts from Green Dot, called GoBank, will cost $8.95 a month if they have direct deposits totaling less than $500 a month. Mr. Eckert said that most people on Social Security or fixed pensions would qualify.

GoBank, as the service is known, is part of Walmart’s long-running push into financial services for people with little or no access to traditional banking.

[...]

Walmart has been eyeing financial services for some time. Two years ago, the company announced a partnership with American Express to offer a prepaid card and debit accounts. Retailers like Target and 7-Eleven also offer prepaid cards.

But the new Walmart initiative will be the first full-blown, off-the-shelf checking account. To help attract customers, Walmart and Green Dot will forgo a screening system many banks use to vet potential customers and rely instead on a proprietary system. The model is expected to allow almost any consumer who passes an identification check to open an account in minutes, according to Green Dot.

In the past, Walmart has tried to secure a federal bank charter to become a deposit-taking bank, but abandoned that effort in 2007 in the face of opposition from the banking industry. Since then, the retailer has assembled an array of services that could be offered without a charter, as well as partnerships with financial service companies like Green Dot.

Five years ago, we discussed how well Wal-Mart was adapting to the stonewalling by the FDIC of its attempt to start or buy an industrial bank. One benefit was that Franken-Dodd's "study of the need for industrial bank charter" may have presaged the demise of that particular charter, making Wal-Mart sorry that it got what it wished for. But there was more to it than merely the form of the charter that it was denied.

It's interesting that Wal-Mart, by not being in the banking business, is side-stepping the public relations backlash that is tainting other bankers who had nothing to do with the causes of the current crisis, such as community banks that are dropping like lawyers on a dove hunt with Dick Cheney. Instead, Wal-Mart is using the avenue open to it (not ideal, but workable) to cement its relationship as a low-cost provider of financial services to working class Americans. The Beast of Bentonville refuses to be tamed.

Wal-Mart didn't get to be a retail "beast" by backing down when confronted. When denied entry through one door, it has relentlessly worked on finding other doors, and then opening them wide. I simply don't see them stopping. As a consequence, of course, lower income citizens who form Wal-Mart's core customer base and who have traditionally had less access to traditional banking services are being "served," but in a beneficial way. Therefore, whether or not bankers are thrilled, the same FDIC that once effectively barred Wal-Mart from the banking business ought to be standing and applauding these latest efforts. Or, at the very least, a squatting ovation seems in order.

More Adventures In Consumer "Protection"

The CFPB's gossip column (which we've previously blasted) got a recent fisking from George Mason University scholars Hester Peirce and Vera Soliman. They point out several inconvenient truths about The Adjustment Bureau's plan to expand the scope of a public rag sheet where anyone and his second cousin Luigi can anonymously lambaste, in narrative form, any financial business in the Milky Way with unverified snark of various flavors. You know, just like what we like to do here at Bank Lawyer's Blog.

Peirce and Soliman make the following criticisms:

• There is not a market failure that would justify the public database (it's a solution in search of a problem). "There may be a powerful consumer demand for sharing bad experiences, but a private complaint database provider can more effectively satisfy that demand."
• It's a costly enterprise whose purported value does not justify the added expense.
• "By publishing a database of unverified, redacted (to remove personally identifiable information) consumer complaints, the Bureau would entice consumers to rely on incomplete and potentially inaccurate information—exactly the type of practice the Bureau seeks to stop financial firms from engaging in."
• Financial institutions will suffer financial harm from unverified complaints that they cannot effectively rebut, given the ridiculously short response time (15 days) and inability to publicly identify the accuser.
• The Bureau lacks legal authority to establish the database.
• The Bureau's argument that other agencies publish similar databases lacks argumentative "heft." "[B]ad practices at one agency do not justify bad practices at another." Moreover, some of those databases provide protections regarding verifiability that the Bureau's will not.

Based upon the CFPB's initial responses to comments it's received about the proposal, don't expect the CFPB to back down from this bad idea. After all, the CFPB has been fairly clear in recent public pronouncements that while technically it's mandate may be to prevent and remediate "unfair, deceptive or abusive" practices, what really revs its engine is "improving customer service." It's not enough to prevent fraud. The Adjustment Bureau is all about improving the "quality" of customer service. It doesn't believe that the free market can adequately manage that aspect of an agenda that requires that life be hassle free, at least if you're not a financial institution. From that perspective, a government-sponsored consumer gossip column makes all the sense in the world.

Shaming The Shameless

Venable LLP's Randy Shaheen and Amy Mudge might just be prime candidates for guest posts on Bank Lawyer's Blog. A recent "All About Advertising Law" post launched a snark attack that made this blogger proud. The victim was every banker's bête noire, the CFPB, and the cause for the caustic comments was the CFPB's apparent hypocrisy.

According to the American Banker, an outspoken critic of indirect auto lenders, Harry Douglas Lane, was in the audience at a recent CFPB forum and was called upon to speak as an audience participant. However, no one in attendance or the press covering the event was informed that the CFPB had paid for Lane’s flight to the forum as well as his hotel.

The lawyers point out that if a private advertiser had engaged in this sort of egregious omission, the FTC would likely have found that it acted inappropriately.

A company holds a press event to tout the success of its newly introduced product. Someone in the audience asks a question, which the Company subsequently uses in its advertising for the product. However, the Company fails to disclose that it actually paid for the audience member to fly into the press event. Is this a problem under the FTC’s Endorsement Guides? Most likely yes, since the payment of travel expenses would probably be a material connection between the consumer and the company.

[...]

As noted above, if advertisers had engaged in this sort of behavior, they almost certainly would have violated the Endorsement Guides, and the CFPB’s purported justification for its failure to disclose, that the critic had only a “limited” role in the Forum, would likely be met with deafening silence by the FTC staff and Bureau Director. Even if the CFPB and other government agencies aren’t literally covered by Section 5, isn’t the practice of disclosing material connections still common sense? After all, government agencies, like advertisers, are often pitching a product or ideas to consumers. Doesn’t the public (and the press) have the right to know that people who speak out in support of these ideas have a “material connection” to the agency advocating the policy?

The answer is "Yes." But, don't hold your breath. It took a "60 Minutes" expose to uncover the practice of Senators and Congress persons benefiting from insider trading, and get them to ban the practice. Even then, Congress, in the dead of night, rolled back part of that ban. Bloggers don't carry the same heft as CBS News and neither does the banking trade press. In addition, while the average voter is already chapped on general principles about the fact that members of Congress have access to oxygen, and, as a result, he or she will sit up and take notice at scandalous behavior by those clowns, he or she doesn't give a flying fig in a rolling donut that the CFPB might be paying witnesses without disclosing it in order to set up auto lenders for a fall. They're just banks, aren't they? Aren't they all a bunch of fat cats who are responsible for the economy collapsing, global warming, baldness, and Miley Cyrus? Set 'em up and take 'em down by whatever means necessary!

Still, the few of us who will follow this latest instance of rolling over a log to view the maggots crawling out appreciate the authors' closing observations.

Perhaps it’s time that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Perhaps it is. Nevertheless, when the gander's the one cooking the goose, expect that the goose to be the only one who's roasted.

Go Together Like A Fish And A Bicycle

I have received unconfirmed reports this weekend that HUD has requested certain large mortgage loan servicers to send marketing materials to HUD borrowers reminding them to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, aka "ObamaCare." As one unidentified commenter put it, considering the Claymation Death Match struggles between those large servicers and the federal government on a number of fronts, asking them to carry the Feds water on such a cluster-FUBAR is either a "ballsy move" or a demonstration of fatal hubris. I vote for the latter.

If this report is correct, it's the kind of strong-arm tactic typical of a crowd suckled on the mother's milk of South Side Chicago bare-knuckled local politics. After all, the large servicers have what the federal government can only dream about: an efficient information distribution system.They're also susceptible to arm-twisting, as evidenced by the billions recently coughed up for robo-signing, enforcing their investors' legal rights under loan documents by foreclosing when borrowers failed to make payments, and otherwise performing the job they are contractually obligated to do. You can understand why the ACA Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, led by Queen Kathleen and the Web Masters of Oz, would want to enlist the services of for-profit entities who, when their customers visit their web sites, are presented with a message other than The Blue Screen of Death.

The fact that mortgage loan servicers soliciting their borrowers to sign up for health insurance in order to save the ACA's (and the Democrats') bacon inspires "WTF!!??" reactions on so many levels should not impede the continued pursuit of this scheme, if it in fact exists. After all, the "Perpetual Speechifier" is a lame duck, so his attitude, and those of the minions at his beck and call, has to be "What are you gonna do about it, huh? Not vote for me the next time I don't run?"

I wonder if and when the main stream media will pick up on this thread to see if there is any meat on the bones?

 

Bank of America Does It Right

Having blistered America's Bank for a social media faux pas, it's fair to give it a hat tip when it uses social media well. What the bank has done well is a video that it produced with Kahn Academy. For those not familiar with Kahn Academy, here's some background from 60 Minutes. Personally, I'm a fan of what Kahn and his cohorts have been doing to teach young people (and adults, for that matter) what many take to be tough subjects, like "Math" (gag, choke).

The latest effort with B of A is a video to teach consumers the difference between a debit card and a credit card, and the advantages and downside of each. While professionals in the banking industry might think it's simplisitic, I think it's effective in teaching the basics. It's not necessary that the average consumer be a banking geek; he or she just needs to know enough to make informed decisions. Kahn Academy (with B of A's help) is, in my opinion, making that happen. When I viewed the video again this evening, it had over 1,200,000 views. That's a lot viewing for a subject that is devoid of twerking or a character named "Katniss."

You can judge for yourselves. The video can be viewed here.

The Sunshine State Shines A Light On Short Skirts

You'd think the home of Crockett and Tubbs would have plenty of problems to deal with other than LinkedIn endorsements of attorneys' skills and the hem length of the skirts of a lawyer's office staff. You'd think that. Of course, you'd be dead wrong, as dead as Tony Montana after a gunfight with a cadre of Columbians.

Orlando lawyer Luis Gonzalez has no plans to block endorsements on LinkedIn, no matter what the new Florida ethics rules require.

"I'm not changing a damn thing," he tells the Daily Business Review. “I want the bar to come after me. I'm 61 years old, and I'm not going to tolerate garbage like that."

Gonzalez is one of several lawyers criticizing the state bar’s new social media rules, enacted as part of new rules on lawyer advertising approved in May by the Florida Supreme Court. Many law firms consider the rules regarding Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn to be the toughest in the country, the story says.

According to this summary (PDF), the guidelines require advertising lawyers to list their names and office addresses, bar misrepresentative testimonials and restrict the use of the words “specialist” and “expert,” as well as their variations.

Lawyers on Twitter are concerned about the need to state an office location on each tweet, the story says. Lawyers on LinkedIn also are concerned about the need to ban third-party endorsements and to refrain from using the word “expertise.” For lawyers on Facebook there is another potential problem—the need to refrain from posting inappropriate or unprofessional photos and videos.

A Twitter post is only 140 characters long. Even if stating an office location and disclaimer on every tweet made a lick of sense, which I question, what's the rest of the tweet supposed to contain? "OMG! U R MY BFF!"

Anyone who's been around LinkedIn for more than fifteen minutes understands that LinkedIn endorsements are as questionable as Anthony Weiner's grasp of the concept of "impulse control." LinkedIn, not the member, automatically generates endorsement suggestions to that member's contacts, and picks the practice area to recommend. That's the only reason that casual acquaintances have endorsed my expertise in Swiss admiralty law. I certainly never requested such an endorsement.

What's especially amusing about the linked article is the brief mention (pun intended) of the nefarious photo posted on a lawyer's Facebook page of his female office staff clad in what the Florida Bar poobahs thought were inappropriately short skirts. While the lawyer removed the photo (a spokesperson for the Bar said that "[h]e kindly removed them when we asked"), I find that the late, great Johnny Cochran could have saved that photo for a leering public with the line, "If the legs are fit, the photo must sit."

Seriously, this is what the Florida Bar is focused upon these days?

Two of my favorite comments in the comments section of the linked article are (1) "He kindly removed the short skirts when asked? How does that improve the image of the bar", and (2) "My Facebook account is very clearly personal and not professional. I’ll put pictures of cats in short skirts if I want to...In the meantime the Bar has signed off on PI firms running ads with pictures of clients and their settlement amounts as if they’re Lotto winners. That’s certainly helping the image of lawyers."