Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Three petitioners sought to quiet title in mineral rights for parcels of land in McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota. They argued that the state relinquished any claim to these mineral rights when a specific chapter of the North Dakota Century Code became effective in 2017. The petitioners claimed that the state abandoned the minerals, making them available for claim, and that they had claimed them by filing the lawsuit.In the McKenzie County case, the petitioners attempted service by publication on unknown persons. Wesley and Barbara Lindvig answered, claiming ownership of the mineral rights. The petitioners' motions to strike the Lindvigs' answer and for default judgment were denied. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim and awarded attorney’s fees to the Lindvigs, concluding the action was frivolous. The petitioners appealed.In the Williams County case, the petitioners made similar claims. Wesley and Barbara Lindvig, along with Kenneth and Mary Schmidt, answered and moved to dismiss on several grounds, including improper service and lack of ownership by the petitioners. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and awarded attorney’s fees, finding the petition frivolous. The petitioners appealed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the cases and affirmed the dismissals, holding that the petitioners had no interest in the disputed minerals and could not maintain a quiet title action. The court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the Schmidts in the Williams County case. However, it reversed the award of attorney’s fees to the Lindvigs in both cases, remanding for further findings on whether the Lindvigs had a connection to the disputed mineral interests. View "Nelson v. Persons Unknown" on Justia Law

In September 2017, Attorney Karolyn Kovtun held a meeting with Jennifer Shenefield and her client Mark Shenefield, despite a criminal protective order prohibiting Mark from contacting Jennifer. During the meeting, Mark and Kovtun verbally and emotionally abused Jennifer, and Kovtun threatened to remove their daughter from Jennifer’s custody if she did not sign a custody agreement. Jennifer signed the agreement under duress and contacted the police. Kovtun continued to represent Mark, who was later convicted of violating the protective order. Kovtun then sued Jennifer for recording the meeting without consent, prompting Jennifer to file a cross-complaint against Kovtun.The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Kovtun’s two anti-SLAPP motions and sustained her demurrer to two of Jennifer’s six causes of action. After a bench trial, the court found Kovtun liable for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, awarding Jennifer $50,000 in damages. Kovtun appealed, arguing that Jennifer’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the litigation privilege.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Kovtun waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to timely and properly plead it. Additionally, the court determined that the litigation privilege did not apply to Kovtun’s communications during the meeting, as they were not made in good faith contemplation of litigation. The court affirmed the judgment against Kovtun, upholding the $50,000 damages award to Jennifer. View "Shenefield v. Kovtun" on Justia Law

Allison Littlefield filed a verified petition against her brothers, Scott and David Littlefield, and her aunt, Denise Sobel, who are co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust. The petition sought their removal as co-trustees, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and the Trust, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Allison claimed that the appellants misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, restricted her use of the Ranch, and failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who allegedly harassed Allison and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike the petition under California's anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the appellants failed to show that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that the petition was based on protected activity. The court noted that the appellants' motion failed to identify specific allegations of protected activity and improperly sought to strike the entire petition or all causes of action without distinguishing between protected and unprotected conduct.However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The court held that any reasonable attorney would agree that the motion was totally devoid of merit, as it did not demonstrate that the petition sought to impose liability based on protected activity. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner, Aaron W., appealed an order from the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (ICA) that dismissed his appeal of a family court order. The family court had disqualified Aaron W.'s attorney from representing him in a divorce proceeding due to a conflict of interest, as the attorney had previously represented both parties in a related personal injury case. The family court's order included language indicating it was a final, appealable order.Initially, Aaron W. sought a writ of prohibition from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to prevent the family court from ruling on the disqualification motion, arguing that the family court lacked jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the writ, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, holding that family courts have the authority to disqualify attorneys in cases of conflict of interest.Aaron W. then appealed the family court's disqualification order to the ICA, which dismissed the appeal, concluding that the order was interlocutory and that it lacked jurisdiction over such appeals. Aaron W. subsequently appealed the ICA's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the ICA's dismissal, holding that the family court's disqualification order was not a final order because it did not terminate the litigation on the merits. The court explained that the ICA generally does not have appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, as specified by West Virginia Code § 51-11-4(d)(8). The court also noted that the family court's inclusion of finality language in its order did not transform the interlocutory order into a final, appealable order. Consequently, the ICA correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Aaron W. v. Evelyn W." on Justia Law

GEICO, a group of insurance companies, presented evidence that the defendants, collectively known as the Mayzenberg Defendants, paid third parties for referring patients eligible for no-fault insurance benefits to Mingmen Acupuncture, P.C. GEICO argued that this constituted an illegal kickback scheme, violating New York's rules of professional misconduct, and thus, under the Eligibility Regulation (11 N.Y.C.R.R. § 65-3.16(a)(12)), Mingmen was ineligible to receive no-fault payments. The Mayzenberg Defendants contended that paying for patient referrals might be professional misconduct but did not violate a "licensing requirement" under the Eligibility Regulation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of GEICO, agreeing that the Mayzenberg Defendants paid for patient referrals and that this conduct rendered Mingmen ineligible for no-fault benefits. The court also granted GEICO summary judgment on its common law fraud and RICO claims, based on the same conclusions about Mingmen’s ineligibility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that while the facts established that the Mayzenberg Defendants paid for patient referrals, the legal question of whether this conduct violated a "licensing requirement" under the Eligibility Regulation was unsettled. Given the lack of clear precedent from the New York Court of Appeals and the significant policy implications, the Second Circuit certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals to determine if paying for patient referrals in violation of New York Education Law § 6530(18) and 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 29.1(b)(3) disqualifies a provider from receiving no-fault payments under the Eligibility Regulation. View "GEICO v. Mayzenberg" on Justia Law

Enrique Sanchez, the petitioner, sought a writ of mandate to vacate a trial court order that directed the San Bernardino County Public Defender to assign a new attorney to represent him. This order was issued after the current deputy public defender made remarks during plea negotiations that invoked Sanchez's race, potentially violating the Racial Justice Act (RJA). Sanchez argued that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the reassignment.The trial court received a motion from the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence and evaluate a conflict of interest after the deputy public defender made racially charged comments. During a closed hearing, Sanchez expressed his desire to retain his current counsel. However, the trial court ordered the reassignment of the deputy public defender, citing potential issues under the RJA and the risk of ineffective assistance of counsel.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing the deputy public defender. The appellate court noted that the RJA's provisions and the potential for implicit bias created an actual conflict of interest that the deputy public defender could not objectively investigate. Additionally, the court found that the trial court's decision to prevent a potential future RJA claim was within its discretion to avoid substantial impairment of the proceedings.The appellate court concluded that Sanchez's arguments regarding constitutional violations and the necessity of an actual conflict were without merit. The court emphasized that the trial court's order was narrowly tailored and did not violate Sanchez's rights. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandate was denied, and the stay on trial court proceedings was vacated. View "Sanchez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

John A. Daugherty, an attorney, filed a breach-of-contract claim against his former client, Molly Chew Baker, in the Jefferson Circuit Court. Daugherty and Molly had an agreement where Daugherty would help Molly collect alimony arrears from her ex-husband, Christopher, on a contingency-fee basis. Daugherty later agreed to represent Molly in additional matters related to her divorce, including a petition to modify alimony payments filed by Christopher. Molly eventually terminated Daugherty's services, and Daugherty sought to recover his fees through the court.The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed Daugherty's complaint, concluding that the contingency-fee arrangement in the contract was against public policy under Rule 1.5(d)(1) of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits contingency fees in domestic relations matters involving alimony or support. The court also noted that the contract did not provide for compensation in the event of a settlement, which occurred when Molly and Christopher jointly dismissed their respective petitions.Daugherty appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, arguing that the contingency-fee arrangement was permissible under an exception for collecting alimony arrears after a completed divorce. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that Daugherty's representation extended beyond collecting arrears to include ongoing alimony matters, which did not fall under the exception. Additionally, Daugherty's claim for quantum meruit was not properly pleaded in the lower court and was inconsistent with his breach-of-contract claim. The Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court's judgment was correct and affirmed the dismissal of Daugherty's complaint. View "Daugherty v. Baker" on Justia Law

A credit union filed a claim in probate court, asserting that the decedent owed money on a car loan. The estate mailed a notice of disallowance to the credit union, but the credit union claimed it never received the notice. The estate argued that the claim was time-barred because the credit union did not request a hearing within twenty days of the notice. The credit union conducted an internal investigation and submitted an affidavit stating it never received the notice and that the person who signed for it was not an employee of the credit union but an agent of the U.S. Postal Service.The Iowa District Court for Linn County imposed sanctions on the credit union and its attorneys for violating Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413(1), which requires that filings be well-grounded in fact and law after reasonable inquiry. The court found that the credit union's investigation was insufficient and that the attorneys made incorrect assertions about the mailing. The Iowa Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the district court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions. The Supreme Court found that the credit union and its counsel conducted a reasonable investigation under the circumstances, given the time constraints and the information available. The court emphasized that the reasonableness of the investigation should be assessed based on the time of the filing, not with hindsight. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustained the writ of certiorari, vacated the sanctions, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Dupaco Community Credit Union v. Iowa District Court for Linn County" on Justia Law

DeRon Edrias Gude was convicted of felony murder and other charges related to the shooting death of Nyyokokie Hendley. On October 11, 2016, Gude called 911 to report a shooting at his home, claiming it was an accident during a fight. Police found Hendley dead from a gunshot wound to the head, with a 9-millimeter handgun near her feet and marijuana in an unlocked safe. Gude was indicted on multiple charges, including malice murder and felony murder. At trial, Gude testified that Hendley had threatened him and pointed a gun at him, leading him to shoot her in self-defense. The jury found Gude guilty of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault and other charges.The DeKalb County Superior Court granted Gude’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the marijuana charge, and the jury found him not guilty of malice murder but guilty on the remaining counts. Gude was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, plus five years for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Gude’s motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and addressed Gude’s claims of plain error in the jury charge on aggravated assault and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court committed an obvious error in the jury instruction but found that Gude failed to show the error likely affected the trial's outcome. The court noted that the jury was properly instructed on the burden of proof and provided with a copy of the indictment. Additionally, Gude’s defense was self-defense, and the jury’s verdict indicated they found he intended to shoot Hendley. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Gude did not demonstrate plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel. View "GUDE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In 2016, the defendant, an attorney, began representing John Emry in his estate planning. Emry's neighbor and friend, the plaintiff, assisted Emry and communicated with the defendant on Emry's behalf. The defendant prepared documents designating the plaintiff as Emry's attorney-in-fact. Emry instructed the plaintiff to sign documents at a bank, making the plaintiff the beneficiary of a significant account. The defendant did not respond to the plaintiff's email seeking clarification about the beneficiary designation. Upon Emry's death, the bank refused to honor the designation, leading to a legal dispute and financial loss for the plaintiff, who then sued the defendant for legal malpractice.The district court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that an alleged violation of a Rule of Professional Conduct does not create a duty to a non-client for civil liability purposes. The plaintiff sought reversal, arguing that the rule, supported by expert testimony, should establish the standard of care for a lawyer's obligation to a non-client.The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not create a legal duty to non-clients. The court emphasized that duty is determined by policy considerations and is a question of law for the court to decide. The court also reaffirmed that while the Rules of Professional Conduct can guide the standard of care, they do not establish a duty. The court directed the Uniform Jury Instructions-Civil Committee to revise UJI 13-2411 to reflect this clarification. View "Waterbury v. Nelson" on Justia Law