PROVIDENCE –– A battle among some of the area’s most prominent personal-injury lawyers is about to be played out before the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Lawyer James Sokolove, who has earned millions by soliciting clients through advertising, is asking the high court to approve his application to establish a branch of his national firm in Rhode Island. His firm –– the Law Offices of James Sokolove, LLC (recently renamed Sokolove Law LLC) –– which was incorporated in Delaware, is applying for a license as a limited liability company here.

Sokolove’s petition is being opposed by several of the state’s high-profile personal-injury lawyers, including David Morowitz and the firms of D’Oliveira & Associates and DeLuca & Weitzenbaum –– groups of lawyers who compete with the Sokolove enterprise for the most lucrative cases –– personal-injury lawsuits. Attorneys who handle these cases usually take them on a contingency basis and can earn millions of dollars in fees from just one big settlement or jury verdict.

The Sokolove case –– which will be heard by the Supreme Court justices on Sept. 29 –– has been pending before the court since early 2008. The Newton, Mass.-based lawyer, who is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and New York, says in court papers that he wants to operate as a national law firm in Rhode Island through one or more attorneys who are licensed to practice in this state. He is not applying to practice law here himself or work out of an office here.

Currently, Sokolove says, he operates as a national law firm in every state, except South Dakota and Rhode Island, as well as the District of Columbia. He says in court papers that the local lawyers’ objections to his plan are based on their fear that they will make less money from future clients who may go to his firm instead of theirs. If the court grants his petition, the Sokolove name could become even more prominent in Rhode Island. He’d be able to resume advertising in the Rhode Island phone book and hire a Rhode Island lawyer or lawyers who would be able to open one or more offices with his name on it as “members” of his limited liability corporation.

TO PRACTICE LAW in Rhode Island, a lawyer must be licensed to practice in this state and be a dues-paying member of the Rhode Island bar. The Rhode Island Supreme Court allows lawyers to operate as a limited liability corporation, but they must be licensed by the court to do so. In the past, the court has granted many such applications from regional or national law firms, Sokolove points out. Out-of-state law firms based and formed in New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Delaware and Florida have all opened satellite offices in Rhode Island, he points out, and Sokolove Law “should not be treated differently because it is a national firm that chooses to seek its prospective clients principally through television advertising.”

In court papers, Sokolove describes himself as a pioneer and strong advocate of increasing access to legal services through advertising. His print and TV ads can be seen by consumers throughout the country. He has served on the American Bar Association’s Commission on Advertising and was recognized by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as one of the “most influential attorneys of the past 25 years” for his efforts in increasing legal access through advertising.”

Sokolove refers cases that come to him through his ads to a network of lawyers throughout the country. One veteran Rhode Island lawyer who has handled cases referred by Sokolove over the years and who has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in his behalf is Peter M. Iascone of Newport.

But several other lawyers –– including some, like Sokolove, who spend heavily on advertising to lure clients –– are upset with the way Sokolove has been operating.

According to court papers, in November 2007, Rhode Island attorney Angel Taveras, on behalf of several unnamed Rhode Island law firms, filed a complaint with David D. Curtin, the court’s chief disciplinary counsel, taking issue with the content of Sokolove’s television and print advertisements as well as other alleged violations of the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The complaint alleged that Sokolove was running misleading print ads and TV commercials in Rhode Island; that he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in this state, had misrepresented himself as a lawyer licensed to practice in Rhode Island, and had failed to provide copies of his ads to Curtin for screening. It further alleged that Sokolove had violated the court’s rules regarding fee-sharing with lawyers to whom he referred cases in Rhode Island. (Sokolove says his fee-sharing agreements are confidential but would be happy to let the court see them in private “if the court would find it helpful to review them.”)

The unnamed complainants, according to court filings, turned out to be Morowitz and the D’Oliveira and Associates and the DeLuca & Weitzenbaum law firms.

Court papers indicate that the disciplinary complaint against Sokolove was dismissed in June 2008.

Rhode Island court rules allow for lawyer referrals –– they are a standard part of a lawyer’s work. Most lawyers specialize in certain areas of the law; if a client comes to them with a problem in an area outside their fields of normal practice, they often farm out at least a part of the work to another lawyer. When a settlement or verdict is finalized, the referring attorney then gets a cut of the attorney’s fees awarded.

Once the disciplinary complaint against Sokolove was dismissed, the lawyers who brought it filed a new, but virtually identical, complaint with an eight-member committee of Rhode Island lawyers appointed by Supreme Court that polices issues involving the unauthorized practice of law. Such complaints can lead to criminal prosecution if the attorney general believes someone is practicing in Rhode Island without a license.

According to court papers, the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee and Sokolove reached “an informal agreement” to resolve the complaint, pending further action by the Supreme Court. Until the court rules on Sokolove’s application to be licensed as a limited liability corporation here, Sokolove has agreed that “any TV ad that appears in Rhode Island will clearly state in objectively readable script that [his firm] is not licensed to practice in the State of Rhode Island and any advertisements in which Sokolove personally appears will clearly state in objectively readable script that he is admitted to practice only in Massachusetts and New York.” Sokolove also agreed, pending the court’s decision, not to list his firm in a Rhode Island telephone directory.

tbreton@projo.com