On August 8, 2022,  the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board dismissed the case brought by the Office of the Disciplinary Council against Louisiana Attorney, Michael C. Palmintier for alleged Failure of Compliance to Rule 7.7(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The case is entitled: “In the matter of Michael C. Palmintier” with Case #20-DB-054.

The charges cited Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.7(c) which states:

Subject to the exemptions stated in Rule 7.8, any lawyer who advertises services through any public media or through unsolicited written communications sent in compliance with Rule 7.4 or 7.6(c) shall file a copy of each such advertisement or unsolicited written communication with the Committee for evaluation of compliance with these Rules. The copy shall be filed either prior to or concurrently with the lawyer’s first dissemination of the advertisement or unsolicited written communication and shall be accompanied by the information and fee specified in subdivision (d) of this Rule. A filing number, as detailed in Rule 7.2(a)(3), shall be assigned and provided to the lawyer by the Louisiana State Bar Association at the time of filing. If the lawyer has opted to submit an advertisement or unsolicited written communication in advance of dissemination, in compliance with subdivision (b) of this Rule, and the advertisement or unsolicited written communication is then found to be in compliance with the Rules, that voluntary advance submission shall be deemed to satisfy the regular filing requirement set forth above.

The rules of professional conduct can be found here. 

The following are as alleged and summarized from the filing.

This is an attorney discipline matter based upon the filing of formal charges by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) against Michael C. Palmintier (Respondent) alleging that Respondent violated Rule7.7 (c) (evaluation of advertisements) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

On March 13, 2020, Richard Lemmler, with the LSBA, provided ODC with evidence of a recently-published advertisement in Super Lawyers Magazine(Louisiana 2020) run by the respondent and his firm. According to Mr. Lemmler’s review of the records kept by the LSBA, the advertisement was not filed with the LSBA“either prior to or concurrently with the lawyer’s first dissemination of the advertisement,” as required by Rule 7.7(c). Mr. Lemmler further confirmed you did not file the advertisement with the LSBA as a “late filing.

The filing states:

‘Respondent denied the allegations. Respondent characterized the firm’s page in Super Lawyers as a profile in an established list, as opposed to an advertisement. Respondent asserted that the profile was exempt from the filing requirement under Rules 7.2(b), 7.6, and 7.8, and that access to electronic applications is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules of Professional Conduct.Respondent admitted that the alleged advertisement was not pre-filed for vetting by LSBA and that he declined the private admonition offered by ODC. Respondent also asserted in his answer that “any effort to apply the Rules of Professional Conduct to the Super Lawyers profile is an unwarranted and unreasonable violation” of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment to the Louisiana Constitution.’

The filing continues:

‘Respondent characterized his firm’s submission in the Super Lawyers magazine as a “profile.” Respondent argued that the purpose and concept of the circulation of Super Lawyers is to provide reasonable information to the legal community of the legal services that are described in the Super Lawyers profile and that the profile falls under the exemption from pre-filing for communications mailed only to existing clients, former clients, or other lawyers. Respondent submitted that his understanding was that the magazine went to other lawyers and to law school libraries and that he did not understand or consent that the circulation would include the general population or consumers. Respondent additionally maintained that access to Super Lawyers information by persons searching the internet is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in the matter, the Board finds that ODC has failed to carry its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged. Therefore, the Board orders that the charges filed against Respondent be dismissed.

The disposition states that:

“For the foregoing reasons, the Board hereby dismisses the formal charges that were filed against Respondent, Michael C. Palmintier, bearing number 20-DB-05.”

Palmienter attended Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, graduating in 1975. As of today, he is listed on the website of law firm Palmienter Law Group as a practicing attorney. His info can be found online.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.