Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Two men were convicted of malice murder and armed robbery following the shooting death of an individual in Muscogee County, Georgia. The crime occurred in August 2018, and both were indicted in November 2020. During their joint trial in October 2022, evidence included surveillance footage, cell phone records showing extensive communication between the defendants around the time of the murder, and testimony connecting one defendant to the murder weapon through a prior uncharged shooting. Witnesses also identified one defendant by his distinctive walk in the video footage, and another admitted to being present at the scene but denied involvement in the killing. Both defendants received life sentences, with one eligible for parole and the other not, while the felony murder counts were vacated by operation of law.After sentencing, both defendants moved for new trials in the Superior Court of Muscogee County. One motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing, and the defendant appealed his conviction, raising issues including the admissibility of surveillance identification, evidence from a prior shooting, alleged prosecutorial conflict of interest, and the admission of in-life photos and victim-impact testimony. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The other defendant’s motion for new trial was granted solely on the ground that the prosecutor had previously represented him as a public defender in an unrelated case, which the trial court found to be a conflict of interest warranting disqualification.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed both appeals. It affirmed the convictions and sentences of the first defendant, finding no reversible error or ineffective assistance of counsel. For the second defendant, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the initial motion to disqualify the prosecutor, as the prior representation was not “substantially related” to the current case under Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a). The case was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining claims raised in the motion for new trial. View "FLAKES v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

A Colorado-based technology company specializing in wireless communications collaborated with a Massachusetts micro-display company to develop a headset, formalizing their respective rights in a contract. The contract established joint intellectual property ownership for the project and designated the Massachusetts company to select counsel and prosecute patents. The selected law firm worked with both companies during patent prosecution, opening billing files and receiving powers of attorney from the Colorado company’s employees. Over time, disputes arose regarding patent applications, including amendments that allegedly benefited the Massachusetts company at the expense of the Colorado company, abandonment of applications, and filing disclaimers—often without informing the Colorado company.After the business relationship ended in 2009, the Colorado company only discovered alleged misconduct by the law firm years later when investigating its patent portfolio in response to a potential acquisition. Subsequent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado led to the law firm’s disqualification due to a found attorney-client relationship, and discovery revealed possible concealment and conflicts of interest.The Colorado company then sued the law firm and individual attorneys in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging legal malpractice and related claims. The district court granted summary judgment for the law firm, concluding all claims were untimely under the statute of limitations, not saved by equitable tolling, and that no attorney-client relationship existed.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that whether the malpractice claims were timely is a factual question suitable for a jury, not summary judgment, and that an attorney-client relationship existed as a matter of law for the relevant period. The appellate court reversed the district court’s timeliness and relationship rulings on the legal malpractice claim, vacated determinations regarding other claims, and remanded for further proceedings. View "BlueRadios, Inc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on an attorney’s contingency fee agreement concerning legal representation for heirs of an Alaska Native allotment. After the attorney successfully represented the heirs in a federal lawsuit against the government for mismanagement of oil and gas leases, a fee dispute arose. The attorney sued one heir in federal court, claiming unpaid fees under the agreement. That heir moved to compel arbitration of the fee dispute pursuant to Alaska Bar Rules, and the federal court stayed the litigation pending arbitration.An Alaska Bar Association arbitration panel was convened. Bar Counsel advised the panel to limit its review to whether the amount of the attorney’s fee was reasonable, excluding issues of enforceability of the agreement, such as claims of duress or illegality under federal Indian law. The panel accepted this narrowed scope and ultimately found the attorney’s fee reasonable, declining to address other challenges. The panel also chose not to refer any ethical concerns to Bar Counsel for disciplinary review.The heir petitioned the Alaska Superior Court (Second Judicial District, Utqiaġvik) to vacate the arbitration award, arguing the panel exceeded its authority, was not impartial, and that the fee agreement was unenforceable. The superior court confirmed the arbitration panel’s decision, finding the panel’s scope limitation a reasonably possible interpretation of its authority under the Bar Rules. The court also awarded the attorney enhanced attorney’s fees for costs incurred in the post-arbitration proceedings, citing Alaska Civil Rule 82.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that a fee arbitration panel’s decision to narrow its review to the reasonableness of a fee is proper if it is a reasonably possible interpretation of the panel’s authority. Additionally, it held that attorney’s fees may be awarded under Civil Rule 82 for post-arbitration proceedings governed by the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. View "Koponen v. Romanov" on Justia Law

Six unrelated criminal defendants in Scott County, Iowa, were each charged with serious misdemeanors in late 2024 and requested court-appointed counsel due to indigency. The Iowa District Court for Scott County initially appointed the Davenport local public defender’s office to represent each defendant. Shortly after these appointments, the Davenport Public Defender, citing a temporary overload of cases as specified in Iowa Code section 13B.9(4)(a), filed motions to withdraw from representing these defendants. The office asserted it was ethically unable to handle the additional cases after considering all relevant factors, including attorney staffing and caseloads.The district associate judge denied these withdrawal motions, stating the Davenport office was fully staffed and that insufficient information had been provided about its workload. The court also noted the lack of available contract or noncontract attorneys to appoint in place of the public defender. Despite repeated filings by the Davenport PD asserting the overload, the district court continued to deny withdrawal, eventually ordering the chief public defender to appear in each case. The State Public Defender then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Iowa Supreme Court, challenging the district court’s refusal to allow the Davenport PD to withdraw.The Supreme Court of Iowa held that while district courts have a limited role in ensuring the statutory precondition of a temporary overload is met, they must be highly deferential to a local public defender’s professional representation regarding such overload. The court concluded that the Davenport PD’s representations satisfied its burden to establish a temporary overload. The district court exceeded its authority by refusing to accept these representations and denying withdrawal. The Supreme Court sustained the writ of certiorari and vacated the district court’s orders attaching the Davenport PD to the six cases. View "State Public Defender v. Iowa District Court For Scott County" on Justia Law

A dispute arose from a contingency fee agreement between the heirs of an Alaska Native allotment and an attorney who helped them recover substantial compensation from the federal government for mismanagement of oil and gas leases on their land. After a settlement was reached, years later, one of the heirs was sued by the attorney in federal court for allegedly failing to make required payments under the fee agreement. The heir then invoked mandatory fee arbitration under Alaska Bar Association rules, which prompted the federal court to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration.The arbitration was conducted before an Alaska Bar Association panel, which, following guidance from Bar Counsel, limited its review to whether the amount of the attorney’s fee was reasonable, and declined to address broader challenges to the enforceability of the fee agreement, including claims of duress and illegality under federal Indian law. The panel ultimately found the fee amount reasonable. Dissatisfied, the heir petitioned the Alaska Superior Court to vacate the panel’s decision, arguing that the panel exceeded its authority by not deciding enforceability issues and raising other statutory grounds under the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA). The Superior Court denied the petition, confirmed the arbitration award, and granted enhanced attorney’s fees to the attorney for post-arbitration litigation.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the Superior Court’s confirmation of the arbitration award. The Supreme Court held that a fee arbitration panel’s decision to narrow the scope of review is subject to a “reasonably possible” standard and that the panel did not exceed its authority in this case. The court also held that awards of attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82 are permissible in post-arbitration proceedings governed by the RUAA and found no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s award. View "Oenga v. Givens" on Justia Law

480 King Street, LLC hired Glick/Boehm & Associates, Inc. (GBA), an architectural firm, to design and administer construction of a stair tower. 480 King alleged that GBA negligently designed elements of the project, including the elevator, electrical, HVAC, windows, and stairs, and also failed to properly administer construction, resulting in code violations and additional costs. As the statute of limitations was approaching, 480 King filed its complaint without the expert affidavit required by the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, later submitting an affidavit from Louis Hackney, a professional engineer, attesting to deviations from the standard of care in both design and contract administration.The Circuit Court of Charleston County, after allowing time for the affidavit, ultimately dismissed all claims against GBA, finding Hackney was not qualified to opine on the standard of care for architects. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of negligent design claims but reversed as to claims for negligent construction administration, finding Hackney qualified under statutory standards for expert witnesses. The appellate court also reversed dismissal of breach of contract and warranty claims, remanding them for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the expert witness affidavit requirement under section 15-36-100 does not mandate the affiant be from the same profession as the defendant, provided the statutory qualifications are met. Hackney’s affidavit was sufficient for the negligent construction administration claim, but not for negligent architectural design, as he declined to opine on the latter. Claims for negligent supervision were subsumed under construction administration. The breach of contract claim may proceed only as to construction administration, while breach of warranty and negligent design claims were properly dismissed. The disposition was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Blanchard v. 480 King Street, LLC" on Justia Law

An attorney filed a petition for a writ of mandate on behalf of a client, seeking to have the trial court refer a statement of disqualification to a different judge. The petition included only the trial court’s order striking the statement of disqualification and did not provide the statement itself or any supporting evidence for the serious accusations made against the trial judge, such as alleged retaliation, discrimination, collusion with opposing counsel, and forgery of court orders. The attorney asserted that these claims were based on his and his client’s “earnest belief,” but failed to present any evidence from the court record to support them.The Superior Court of Orange County had previously struck the statement of disqualification, and the attorney’s petition to the appellate court was denied due to lack of supporting evidence. Following this denial, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, issued an order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for filing a frivolous writ petition and for failing to support factual contentions with citations to the record. The attorney responded but continued to provide no substantive evidence, instead relying on personal beliefs and documents not included in the trial record.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, found that the petition was frivolous and that the attorney had unreasonably violated procedural rules by making unsupported assertions, particularly serious accusations against the trial judge. The main holding is that an attorney may not make factual assertions or accusations against a judge without evidentiary support and must adhere to procedural requirements for appellate filings. The court imposed monetary sanctions of $25,000 against the attorney and ordered that notice be given to the State Bar. View "N.D. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

A debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and retained an attorney to serve as counsel in the Chapter 11 proceedings. The bankruptcy court appointed the attorney as counsel for the estate. In early 2018, a trustee was appointed due to concerns about liens on the debtor’s properties, and the trustee began liquidating assets. Following these events, the debtor sued her former bankruptcy attorney and his law firm in California state court for legal malpractice related to the bankruptcy representation.In state court, the attorney moved to dismiss the malpractice suit, arguing that the Barton doctrine, res judicata, and lack of standing barred the action. The Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed the suit solely based on the Barton doctrine, which requires leave from the bankruptcy court before suing court-appointed officers in another forum. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that the Barton doctrine applied to claims arising from the attorney’s actions while serving as debtor-in-possession counsel but not to actions taken after the trustee’s appointment. The appellate court allowed leave to amend for certain post-trustee claims if standing was established.The debtor then moved in bankruptcy court for leave to continue her malpractice suit under the Barton doctrine. The bankruptcy court granted leave for certain time periods but did not precisely tailor its order to the state appellate decision. The attorney appealed to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), which vacated the bankruptcy court’s order, holding it violated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine by modifying state court judgments. On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that granting Barton leave does not violate Rooker-Feldman, and the bankruptcy court may cure a jurisdictional defect after state court proceedings have begun. However, the Ninth Circuit found the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by not aligning its order with the state appellate decision and by granting Barton approval for claims not subject to the doctrine. The Ninth Circuit reversed the BAP, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions for the bankruptcy court to issue a tailored order consistent with the California appellate decision. View "Akhlaghpour v. Orantes" on Justia Law

A cloud-based real estate services company faced persistent and grave allegations that two top agents, along with several others, drugged and sexually assaulted company agents at events. Reports began surfacing in 2020, including a viral social media post and a memo sent to company executives detailing numerous incidents. Despite these warnings, the board initially terminated one perpetrator but continued paying him, and allowed others implicated to continue working. A whistleblower director raised these issues repeatedly at board meetings and with outside counsel, but the board’s responses were limited to internal investigations led by insiders and did not result in meaningful change. The company only took further action after survivors filed federal anti-trafficking lawsuits in 2023 and the story became public.Prior to the current litigation, federal courts sustained anti-trafficking claims against the company and its leadership, finding sufficient allegations that the leadership benefited from retaining perpetrators due to the company’s revenue-sharing structure. The defendants in this derivative action are not accused of direct misconduct, but of harming the company by allowing and covering up systemic sexual abuse. The plaintiff, a shareholder, alleges the board and certain officers actively covered up abuse and breached their fiduciary duties, and that some board members failed their oversight obligations in the face of numerous red flags.The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It held that workplace sexual misconduct can constitute a corporate trauma supporting a breach of fiduciary duty claim under Delaware law. The court denied dismissal as to claims against the officer alleged to have benefited from covering up abuse, and against the directors for failing to respond in good faith to clear red flags. However, it granted dismissal of a novel claim seeking to extend oversight duties to a control group of shareholders, declining to make new law in that area. View "Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System v. Sanford" on Justia Law

This case concerns a business dispute between two individuals, Alan Weigel and Jason Albertson, regarding Veritas Crane LLC, a company providing crane and hoist services. Albertson founded Veritas in 2018, and Weigel joined the business in 2019, with both claiming at least 50% ownership. Their relationship deteriorated, leading Albertson to request the company’s bank to restrict access to its accounts due to allegations of fraudulent activity. In response, Weigel limited Albertson’s access to company facilities. Weigel then filed a complaint, naming himself and Veritas as plaintiffs, asserting both derivative claims on behalf of Veritas and direct claims against Albertson.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, reviewed the matter after Albertson moved to disqualify Weigel’s attorney, Joel Fremstad. The court found that Fremstad had a lawyer-client relationship with both Weigel and Veritas, relying on evidence such as Fremstad’s signing of pleadings for both plaintiffs and communications indicating he advised Weigel in his role as CEO of Veritas. The court concluded that this concurrent representation violated North Dakota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a), which prohibits representation of adverse clients, and ordered Fremstad’s disqualification.The Supreme Court of North Dakota addressed Weigel’s appeal and his petition for a supervisory writ. It determined the disqualification order was not immediately appealable under statutory law or the collateral order doctrine and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising its supervisory authority, the Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s order for abuse of discretion and clear error. Although it noted a harmless legal error in the district court’s reasoning regarding derivative suits, the Supreme Court held that the underlying factual findings were supported by the record. The Court denied the petition for a supervisory writ, upholding the disqualification of Fremstad. View "Weigel v. Albertson" on Justia Law