Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Christian L. Gilbert filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against his former attorney, Christopher M. Johnson, and Johnson’s law firm, Cordell & Cordell, P.C. Gilbert had hired Johnson to represent him in a paternity action in the district court for Lancaster County, where the mother of his child sought to establish paternity and obtain custody and child support. The court issued a temporary custody order granting the mother custody and Gilbert parenting time every other weekend. Gilbert claimed he never agreed to this arrangement and wanted custody. He alleged that Johnson negligently or knowingly misadvised him that the court would not award him custody and failed to advocate for his interests. Gilbert eventually retained new counsel, but the court awarded the mother sole custody, subject to Gilbert’s parenting time. Gilbert claimed that Johnson’s negligence resulted in him not being awarded more than parenting time.The case was initially filed in state court but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The federal court inferred that Gilbert was injured by the custody orders but not economically. Finding no Nebraska precedent on whether noneconomic damages are recoverable in legal malpractice actions, the federal court certified the question to the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court determined that noneconomic damages in a legal malpractice action arising from a child custody dispute, where no physical injury has been sustained, may be recoverable only if the attorney engages in egregious conduct or conduct intended to essentially destroy a parent-child relationship. This decision recognizes the intrinsic value of the parent-child relationship and the foreseeability of emotional harm from its loss, but limits recovery to the most serious cases of attorney misconduct. View "Gilbert v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault, alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2004, and June 1, 2008. He filed a motion to quash and dismiss the charges, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The district court denied the motion, stating that the statute of limitations likely had not run but required a preliminary hearing to determine the ages of the victims. Before the preliminary hearing, the State amended the charges to include offenses from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2008. The appellant eventually pled no contest to one count of first-degree sexual assault under a plea agreement.The district court accepted the plea after confirming that the appellant understood the charges, the penalties, and his rights. The court also confirmed that the appellant was competent to plead, despite his PTSD and not taking medication on the day of the plea hearing. The appellant was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison, with credit for time served. His trial counsel did not appeal, leading the appellant to file a pro se motion for postconviction relief, which was granted, allowing him to file a direct appeal.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons, including failing to file a motion to quash the amended information, not disclosing a health condition that impaired counsel’s ability, and not properly advising him of the consequences of his plea. The court found that the record did not support claims of ineffective assistance regarding the motion to quash, as the statute of limitations had not expired, and there was no ex post facto violation. The court also found that the appellant was adequately informed of the consequences of his plea and that his counsel was not deficient in this regard.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s acceptance of the plea and the sentence, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Haas" on Justia Law

James M. Briggs, Jr. was charged with two counts of second-degree assault for attacking two employees at the Lincoln Correctional Center (LCC) on April 21, 2021. The charges were based on allegations that Briggs punched one employee, Parwiz Masoodi, multiple times and kicked another employee, Desaray Kerns, in the face while they were trying to restrain him. Both employees sustained bruising and received emergency medical care.The District Court for Lancaster County held a jury trial in May 2023, where both victims testified, and security footage of the incident was presented. Briggs moved to dismiss the charges at the close of the State’s evidence, arguing insufficient evidence, but the court denied the motion. The jury found Briggs guilty on both counts. At sentencing, the court found Briggs to be a habitual criminal and sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 10 to 12 years’ imprisonment, with a 10-year mandatory minimum for each count.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. Briggs argued that the jury instructions were incorrect because they did not include "unlawful" as an element of the offense and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to this omission. The court found that the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly stated the law and encompassed all material elements of the charged crime. Therefore, Briggs' counsel was not deficient.Briggs also contended that his counsel was ineffective for not informing the court of amendments to the habitual criminal statute that reduced the mandatory minimum sentence. The court noted that the amendments were not in effect at the time of sentencing, so counsel was not deficient. However, applying the rule from State v. Randolph, the court vacated Briggs' sentences and remanded for resentencing under the amended statute, which mitigated the punishment. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Briggs" on Justia Law

Marcus Brown was convicted of theft by unlawful taking after he took two scissor lifts from a Menards distribution center. Brown, who had previously worked as a contractor for Menards, claimed he intended to borrow the lifts for a personal construction project and return them. The prosecution argued that Brown intended to permanently deprive Menards of the lifts, as he did not obtain formal permission or inform anyone at the distribution center of his actions. The lifts were recovered only after Menards' investigation and the involvement of law enforcement.The Douglas County District Court denied Brown's motion for a directed verdict and the jury found him guilty. The court sentenced Brown to 90 days in county jail followed by three years of probation, during which he was ordered to pay restitution of approximately $11,000. Brown appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support his conviction, improper restitution order, and ineffective assistance of counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Brown intended to deprive Menards of the lifts. However, the court identified plain error in the sentencing. The sentence imposed was a determinate sentence of 90 days in jail followed by probation, which is not authorized for a Class IIA felony. The court vacated Brown's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court did not address Brown's arguments regarding the restitution order due to the vacated sentence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to witness bias and failure to contact other witnesses were deemed insufficiently supported by the record for review on direct appeal. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

In Nebraska, a man named Hope T. Npimnee was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 35 to 40 years in prison. The victim, identified as S.M., claimed that she was intoxicated when Npimnee had non-consensual sexual contact with her. Npimnee appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury instructions were incorrect and contradictory, that there was insufficient evidence to support the theory that S.M. was so intoxicated as to be incapable of resisting, that the court failed to instruct the jury on the defense of consent, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s conviction and sentence, finding that the jury instructions were correct and that there was sufficient evidence to support the theory that S.M. was so intoxicated as to be incapable of resisting. The Court also found that there was no need for an additional instruction on the defense of consent, as the jury was already required to find that the sexual contact was without consent in order to convict Npimnee. Npimnee's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were dismissed due to insufficiently specific allegations. View "State v. Npimnee" on Justia Law

In the case, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Bernard R. Turner for first degree murder. The court found no error in the trial court’s decision to grant the state’s motion to continue the trial due to the discovery of new evidence, a cell phone, a week prior to the original trial date. The Supreme Court stated that the timing of the state’s disclosure of the cell phone and its admission at trial did not violate Turner’s right to due process under Brady v. Maryland or Nebraska Revised Statute § 29-1912. The court also found that Turner waived his right to relief from the state’s belated disclosure by failing to request a continuance.The court further determined that the evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of a key witness who claimed Turner confessed to him, was sufficient to support Turner’s conviction. The court noted that a voluntary confession, with slight corroboration, can establish the corpus delicti as well as the defendant’s guilty participation.Finally, the court rejected Turner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Turner claimed his trial counsel failed to zealously advocate for him and did not present an adequate defense. However, the court found these claims were insufficiently specific and that Turner failed to show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient or that this deficient performance actually prejudiced his defense. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, finding that the Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) violated the due process rights of two landowners, Merlin Brown and Uhrich & Brown Limited Partnership, by having the same attorneys act as both prosecutors and participants in the adjudicatory process of the case. The court held that such a combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in the same individuals posed an intolerably high risk of actual bias, thus, infringing on the landowners' right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. In this case, the NRD had accused the landowners of violating certain ground water management rules. The case was initially heard by the Board of Directors of the NRD, whose decision to impose penalties on the landowners was informed by the same attorneys who had prosecuted the case on behalf of the NRD. The landowners appealed the Board's decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), leading to the district court's reversal. The NRD then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's ruling. View "Uhrich & Brown Ltd. Part. v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the convictions and sentences of Trenton R. Esch for first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Esch argued that the jury instructions concerning reasonable doubt and intoxication were in error, and that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to these instructions. The court found that the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury and were not misleading. Further, the court ruled that there was no plain error indicative of a probable miscarriage of justice. The court also determined that Esch's counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the instructions or in his handling of the evidence and arguments related to Esch's intoxication. The court rejected Esch's remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to an insufficient record. The case centered around Esch's killing of his stepmother, with the primary issue at trial being whether Esch shot her purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice, or whether he acted impulsively under the influence of alcohol. The jury found Esch guilty of first degree murder. View "State v. Esch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendant, an ophthalmologist, and dismissing Plaintiff's claim of professional negligence on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.In granting summary judgment in Defendant's favor the district court described the case as a medical malpractice suit that was clearly barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant waived the right to seek dismissal on statute of limitations grounds based on evidence outside the complaint, and it was not apparent from the face of the complaint that his claims were barred; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in granting Defendant summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. View "Schuemann v. Timperley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in this medical malpractice action brought by Parents against the two doctors involving in the birth and emergency care of their infant son, holding that Parents were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error.On appeal, Parents argued that the district court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony concerning causation due to a lack of pretrial disclosure and lack of foundation and that a reasonable jury could have found in their favor of their malpractice claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony; and (2) the district court correctly directed verdicts for the defendants because Parents failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to make findings in their favor on each element of their malpractice claims. View "Carson v. Steinke" on Justia Law