Blick Law Attorney Eric J. Warner Named in Ethics Complaints
NJ attorney Eric J. Warner is the subject of professional ethics complaints submitted to both the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Complaints were also filed against attorney Shaun I. Blick of Blick Law LLC, Somerset, NJ. Consumer watchdog and web publisher Sean Kelly of Lancaster, PA filed the complaints February 10 with documentation of Warner’s and Blick’s abuse of the legal system to wage a harassment and intimidation campaign on behalf of their client, former attorney and commissioned franchise broker Mark Schnurman, & his company the Perfect Franchise, Shohola, PA.
(UnhappyFranchisee.Com) The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted by Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 1, 1988 and last revised November 14, 2024. The Rules provide clear guidance and mandates to ensure that attorneys licensed to practice in PA act professionally and responsibly not only as advocates for their clients, but as officers of the legal system.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct states:
- “A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having a special responsibility for the quality of justice.”
- “A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.”
- “A lawyer shall not knowingly… make a false statement of material fact”
- “A lawyer shall not… unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material…”
The NJ Courts Rules of Professional Conduct states:
- “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, nor assert or controvert an issue therein unless the lawyer knows or reasonably believes that there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous…”
- “A lawyer shall not… unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material…
- “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law…”
- “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to… engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”
Attorney Eric J. Warner of Blick Law LLC & The Law Office of Eric J. Warner LLC Practices in PA and NJ
Attorney Eric J. Warner (NJ ID 036512006; PA ID: 315003) practices law in PA and NJ and agreed to abide by these rules as an officer and representative of the legal system.
Sean Kelly, an independent journalist and publisher of the consumer watchdog website UnhappyFranchisee.Com, has filed complaints with both PA and NJ disciplinary bodies requesting an investigation of alleged harassment and intimidation waged by Warner and Shaun Blick, Managing Member of Blick Law, LLC.
In addition to overseeing Warner at Blick Law, LLC, Shaun Blick is also an appointed member of Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
You can read the Ethics Complaint filed against Eric J. Warner here:
NJ Attorney Eric J. Warner Ethics Complaint
Blick Law Attorney Eric J. Warner Filed Two Bullying Lawsuits Based on False Claims & a Non-Existent Blog Post, Withheld Key Exhibits & Never Served Documents as Claimed
The ethics complaints filed by Kelly against Blick Law Managing Member Shaun Blick and attorney Eric Warner relate to what Kelly calls a vicious & meritless legal attack on him and his consumer watchdog site.
Blick Law attorney Eric Warner filed two lawsuits (CI-25-00111 and CI-25-00123) on December 7 and December 9, 2024 in the Court of Common Pleas, Second Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Schnurman and The Perfect Franchise v. Sean Kelly and Relentless Inc. d/b/a UnhappyFranchisee.Com.
The first (CI-25-00111) was a suit seeking removal of allegedly defamatory statements published on Kelly’s website.
According to Kelly, he never received the documents in the complaint, including the Petition & Memorandum of Law, that Warner submitted to the court that he served (or would serve). In fact, Kelly was not even aware of their existence until more than two weeks later, after the request was withdrawn. The ethics complaint alleges that Warner may have taken steps to keep Kelly from realizing that there were documents submitted to the court, but not him.
The Petition & Memorandum submitted to the court (but not Kelly) contains the same false representations as outlined below.
The 2nd lawsuit filed by Blick Law LLC on behalf of broker Mark Schnurman claims Defamation, Intentional Interference With Prospective Contractual Relations, Invasion of Privacy – False Light, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, against Sean Kelly and Relentless, Inc. d/b/a UnhappyFranchisee.com – all based on Kelly’s emailed suggestion he remove the three pages.
The suits seek removal of the alleged defamatory materials, compensatory damages, economic damages and punitive damages, prejudgement interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs, and “such further relief as the court deems proper and just.”
In the ethics complaint, Kelly states that, lacking any legitimate legal claim, Blick attorney Eric Warner misrepresented the email message (sent privately to Schnurman & a few colleagues) requesting the removal of the deceptive pages, transforming it into an article posted on the Unhappy Franchisee website.
The lawsuit alleges that the non-existent blog post was read by practically every Schnurman client, as the “majority” of his clients had called him in a panic, their confidence shaken.
Warner stated that the defamatory statements were published in a blog post titled “IFPG Dropped Phoenix Franchise Brands Amidst Franchisee Horror Stories. The Perfect Franchise Keeps Promoting,” which was attached as “Exhibit 1.” Since no such blog post existed, Warner neglected to attach any Exhibits in the initial filing.
The false representation of a blog post as described would have been necessary for Warner & Schnurman to claim damages, the foundation of each of the lawsuit’s six counts.
Blick Law attorney Eric J. Warner refused to return calls to Kelly’s insurance carrier who requested more time to determine whether his policy would enable him to retain counsel. After the third call, a receptionist relayed Warner’s refusal to grant an extension. On February 14, 2025, Warner sent a notice of default to Kelly’s home..
Sean Kelly is fighting both lawsuits pro se with support and guidance from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press and RCFP Local Legal Initiative Attorney Paula Knudsen Burke.
Also Read:
BULLIED BY BROKERS: TPF Franchise Brokers SLAPP Consumer Watchdog
Mark Schnurman, The Perfect Franchise Lawsuit: Documents & Timeline
The Perfect Franchise Partner Patrick Elsner Was Sued for Racketeering, Fraud
The Perfect Franchise Consultant Brandon Wilson Was Sued for Racketeering, Fraud
Please Support Unhappy Franchisee & Support FREE SPEECH in Franchising
Have you been helped by the work of Sean Kelly and Unhappy Franchisee?
Please share a word of support here:
Sean Kelly, Unhappy Franchisee & Franchise Truth TESTIMONIALS
Do you value having a safe space where franchisees and others can share their experiences & opinions without fear?
If so, please support us in two ways:
Leave a comment or email a message in support of Unhappy Franchisee that we can show the Judge that we provide a vital service that benefits the public interest. Explain how we helped you or others that you know.
Make a much-needed financial contribution to our Legal Defense Fund so we can withstand the attacks of those who wish to keep the public in the dark:
Contribute to the FREE SPEECH IN FRANCHISING Legal Defense Fund.
Thank you for your support!
Sean Kelly
Tags: Blick Law, attorney Shaun Blick, attorney Eric J. Warner, NJ ethics committee, SLAPP, Mark Schnurman, Mark Adam Schnurman, The Perfect Franchise, franchise consultants, franchise brokers,Phoenix Franchise Brands, Fetch! Pet Care franchise, Furry Land Grooming franchise, Spray Foam Genie franchise, SLAPP, Strategic Lawuit Against Public Participation, PA, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
To whom it may concern,
My name is Kim Perrotta and I have been involved in franchising for nearly three decades. I have known Mr. Sean Kelly for nearly as long.
Mr. Kelly has repeatedly been a valued resource for factually substantiated information as far back as I can remember. I refer many to his articles and information concerning anything to do with franchising and in particular how to avoid problematic scenarios where due diligence is required. Mr. Kelly’s work should always be part of a potential Franchisee investor’s due diligence.
He has assisted many in coming to know truthful and unbiased information concerning problematic franchises, franchisees, franchise salespeople, franchise organizations, franchise lawyers, and the aggregate damage done to investors when they deal with those who are less than honest, unethical, and unregulated.
Mr. Kelly, as a respected well-known individual within the “franchise space,” is a journalist of the highest caliber and integrity. His sources are always consistent with the facts and he has never failed to invite opposing opinions whenever he publically prints an article, blog, or interview.
If the reader can take away simply one thing from this note it is that Mr. Kelly has saved many from unscrupulous individuals involved in franchising including brokers, consultants, franchisors, lawyers, accountants, professors, and franchise sales organizations that do very little to protect potential small business owners and franchisees in the highly unregulated franchise space.
I further respectfully submit this note in support of Mr. Kelly and his work and am fully aware of the slanderous comments made about him by one with questionable ethics and the lawyer supporting this unethical behavior. Frankly, all those involved who have “come after” Mr. Kelly should be ashamed of themselves as it only serves to prove that money can buy almost anything even a claim of false accusations and, in this case, a “fee for letter” attorney who should likely focus on his behavior and the behavior of his client rather than that of Mr. Kelly’s.
I am available at any time to add anything additional to this statement to the extent that I am aware of and can be contacted directly through Mr. Kelly or via the email address included in the note.