Bar subpoenas lawyers who used LegalMatch, objections raised

The general counsel of the California State Bar said the agency has issued subpoenas to "a small number of attorneys" who registered with LegalMatch.com. But one attorney speaking on condition of anonymity said the demands appear to be widespread.

Meanwhile, a different attorney representing lawyers who worked with LegalMatch verified a redacted subpoena acquired by the Daily Journal was the same as those received by her clients. She said some subpoenas demands were overly broad and sought "attorney-client privileged communications."

"Under the State Bar's obligation as a regulatory agency whose principal mission is the protection of the public, it has issued subpoenas to only a small number of attorneys who worked with LegalMatch for a limited 10-month time frame in order to obtain relevant referral information for the prosecution of LegalMatch," said State Bar General Counsel Vanessa L. Holton in an emailed statement. "The overwhelming majority of these attorneys are cooperating without the need of a process server. We look forward to the trial this coming spring to hold LegalMatch accountable for its violation of the California law regulating lawyer referral services and the threat to the public that that violation represents."

"A number of my clients have received the subpoenas from the State Bar," Ellen A. Pansky of Pansky Markle Attorneys at Law in Pasadena, said in an email. "I find it interesting that the State Bar is civilly prosecuting LegalMatch in light of the reported approximate two-decade period in which the State Bar was allegedly in contact with LegalMatch, never asserting that it was an LRS," or lawyer referral service.

The dispute grew out of a ruling two years ago by the 1st District Court of Appeal. Ironically, that case began when the company sued one of its own subscribers for unpaid dues. Dorian L. Jackson of The DJC Law Firm in Torrance filed a counterclaim, arguing the company was running an unregistered lawyer referral service under the guise of being an advertiser. A unanimous three-justice panel reversed a San Francisco Superior Court judge, finding the company was operating a referral service as defined in state law. Jackson v. LegalMatch.com, 2019 DJDAR 11045 (Cal. App. 1st, filed Nov. 26, 2019).

The bar then sued the company, seeking civil penalties and an order "enjoining LegalMatch from engaging in the unlawful operation of an uncertified lawyer referral service." State Bar of California v. LegalMatch.com, CGC20584278 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed May 4, 2020).

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan P. Schulman denied the bar an emergency injunction, saying the bar had withheld from the court that the company had applied to register as a referral service. It has now been registered for 15 months, though the litigation has continued.

The side story to the dispute is whether there would be implications for lawyers who had used LegalMatch. According to attorney who contacted the Daily Journal, "every" attorney registered with the service appeared to be receiving subpoenas.

"That is inaccurate," Holton said. "The State Bar is currently prosecuting LegalMatch and its principals for illegally operating as an uncertified lawyer referral service. As the Daily Journal has reported, the company has repeatedly failed to meet its legal duty to provide discovery documents to the State Bar of California in the course of the litigation. For that, the San Francisco Superior Court sanctioned Legal Match $10,000 in May, 2021, and $15,000 in November, 2021."

Pansky confirmed the authenticity of a redacted subpoena acquired by the Daily Journal. Among other demands, it seeks "all communications" relating to the 1st District and San Francisco cases, as well as their "obligation ... to not accept referrals" from an unlicensed source. Pansky said these demands "are so broad that they seem to call for attorney-client privileged communications."

Ken A. LeMance, in-house counsel with LegalMatch, said the company has tried to comply with the law since the "surprise ruling changed the definition of a "lawyer referral service."

"LegalMatch has now been certified as a Lawyer Referral Service for over 15 months lawfully operating in CA, yet the CA Bar thinks it's wise to spend taxpayer dollars pursuing attorneys for the same information they already have," LeMance wrote in an email. "This type of waste is exactly why lawyers hate the CA Bar."