Hi, Carolyn.  Thanks for commenting.  I’m not so sure a year is too harsh.  (1) The ad campaign ran for years, incessantly on tv (I lived in Rochester while it was airing on every newscast), plus as a full-page ad on the backcover of the local Yellow Pages — so, once the facts came out, I think both the public and the bar needed to see that the matter was taken seriously; (2) a malpractice award was, I presume, paid for by the insurer, which means it raised the premiums of all lawyers; (3) the Court opinion notes several prior disciplinary actions against Jim Shapiro — he’s a serial offender. 
Since Shapiro is not even practicing law anymore, and has gotten a nice chunk of money for his Rochester practice, the year suspension is meaningless to Shapiro.

Hi, Carolyn.  Thanks for commenting.  I’m not so sure a year is too harsh.  (1) The ad campaign ran for years, incessantly on tv (I lived in Rochester while it was airing on every newscast), plus as a full-page ad on the backcover of the local Yellow Pages — so, once the facts came out, I think both the public and the bar needed to see that the matter was taken seriously; (2) a malpractice award was, I presume, paid for by the insurer, which means it raised the premiums of all lawyers; (3) the Court opinion notes several prior disciplinary actions against Jim Shapiro — he’s a serial offender. 
Since Shapiro is not even practicing law anymore, and has gotten a nice chunk of money for his Rochester practice, the year suspension is meaningless to Shapiro.

David: I meant to post on this one but have been too busy. I will comment here. I did think that a year’s suspension was a little steep. Yes, the Hammer’s ads were misleading – but he also lost (and presumably paid) a $2 million malpractice verdict as a result of one. The article didn’t point to other situations were people were mislead. As for the letter to the comatose patient – yes it is tacky but I could not help think that she was comatose. It’s not as if she was going to be mislead. I would have given a reprimand on this one or a short suspension (3 months) and made Hammer pay a fine that the bar could have used to educate consumers about hiring attorneys or misleading advertising.

David: I meant to post on this one but have been too busy. I will comment here. I did think that a year’s suspension was a little steep. Yes, the Hammer’s ads were misleading – but he also lost (and presumably paid) a $2 million malpractice verdict as a result of one. The article didn’t point to other situations were people were mislead. As for the letter to the comatose patient – yes it is tacky but I could not help think that she was comatose. It’s not as if she was going to be mislead. I would have given a reprimand on this one or a short suspension (3 months) and made Hammer pay a fine that the bar could have used to educate consumers about hiring attorneys or misleading advertising.