On November 19, 2020, the Fourth District, Section II Subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar publicly reprimanded Chicago attorney Isaac Philip Rabicoff over a case of misrepresentation.
The Case is entitled “In the Matter of Isaac Philip Rabicoff” with case no. 22-042-125771.
The charges cited Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1(a), 3.3(a),(1), 8.5(b)(1), 8.4(c)(d) which states.
A lawyer shall not present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law.
A lawyer shall not knowingly*4make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.
Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of Virginia, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:(1) for conduct in connection with a proceeding in a court, agency, or another tribunal before which a lawyer appears, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the jurisdiction in which the court, agency, or other tribunal sits unless the rules of the court, agency or other tribunal provide otherwise.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud*6, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation;(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
While representing a client, the Respondent filed 49 patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. At the time Respondent filed the 49 lawsuits, Respondent was not admitted to practice law before the Court. Moreover in 29 of the 49 cases Respondent filed, Respondent, did not seek admission to appear pro hac vice or pay the pro hac vice application fee.
The filing states:
“As of May 6, 2020, Respondent had not applied for pro hac vice admission in the Cedar Lane Lawsuit On July 1, 2020, Respondent and Anderson filed a first amended complaint. Anderson appeared as lead counsel. Respondent appeared as “Pro Hac Vice admission to be filed.” Respondent was lead counsel at the time of the filing of the first amended complaint. Respondent did not file an application for pro hac vice admission for three months.”
The filing continues:
“On July 31, 2020, Respondent and Anderson filed a third amended complaint without seeking leave of court or obtaining the defendant’s consent, as required by Rule 15. Anderson was again identified as lead counsel although Respondent was still acting as lead counsel. Respondent still appeared as “Pro Hac Vice admission to be filed,” even though Respondent did not file a pro hac vice until October 29. 14. On August 14, 2020, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(f), the defendant filed motions to dismiss and strike the third amended complaint. 15. Respondent filing as “of Counsel” while acting as lead counsel, opposed the motion to strike arguing, in contravention of Rule 15’s clear language, that Rule 15 allows a plaintiff to amend its pleadings as of right every time the defendant files a new motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). As the Court later observed, the Respondent’s argument “defied Rule 15’s plain language” and common sense. Rule 15 provides that a party “may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within … 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b),” but that for “other amendments” and “in all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”
The filing further states:
“Respondent authored the response to the show cause. Respondent, however, listed himself as “of Counsel.” The response stated that the parties had reached an out-of-court agreement thus mooting the question of whether the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.. In the response, Respondent and Anderson stated that they failed to appear on October 1 “because the hearing was scheduled two days after it was docketed, so counsel’s scheduling procedure – which would include double-checking the docket — was less rigorous than usual.” In his personal declaration, Respondent stated that the Court scheduled the hearing two days before the hearing. In fact, the Court scheduled the hearing eight weeks in advance. Respondent further declared he was “lead counsel,” contradicting his identification on the pleadings as “Of Counsel,” and he misinterpreted Rule 15 as allowing the plaintiffs to file a new complaint after each motion to dismiss.”
According to the court, the Respondent’s conduct constitutes misconduct in violation of the following provisions of the California Rules of Professional Conduct as cited above. Hence, a public reprimand should be imposed.
The Disposition states:
“Accordingly, having approved the agreed disposition, it is the decision of the Subcommittee to impose a public Reprimand WithoutTerms and Isaac P. Rabicoffis hereby reprimanded.”
As of today, Mr. Rabicoff is listed on the website of the law firm Rabicoff Law LLC as a practicing attorney. His info can be found on rabilaw.com. He attended Loyola University Chicago School of Law and graduated in 2013. Rabicoff practices in Chicago, Illinois. He is also licensed in Virginia.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
