Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

HRT Enterprises pursued a takings claim against the City of Detroit after losing a jury verdict in state court in 2005. Subsequently, HRT filed suit in federal court in 2008, alleging a post-2005 violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the federal action, citing the requirement from Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), to exhaust state remedies first. HRT then returned to state court, where its claim was dismissed on claim preclusion grounds, a decision affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals. After the state court denied compensation, HRT initiated a federal § 1983 action in 2012. The case was stayed when the City filed for bankruptcy, prompting HRT to participate in bankruptcy proceedings to protect its compensation rights. Ultimately, the bankruptcy court excepted HRT’s takings claim from discharge, allowing the federal case to proceed. After two jury trials, the district court entered judgment for HRT in September 2023.Following its success, HRT moved for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, presenting billing records that included work from related state and bankruptcy proceedings. The district court applied a 33% discount to the claimed hours due to commingled and poorly described entries, set an average hourly rate, and awarded $720,486.25, which included expert witness fees. Both parties appealed aspects of the fee award to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by concluding it had no discretion to award fees for work performed in the related state-court and bankruptcy proceedings, as such fees are recoverable when the work is necessary to advance the federal litigation. The court also found the district court erred in awarding expert witness fees under § 1988(c) in a § 1983 action, as the statute does not authorize such fees for § 1983 claims. The appellate court vacated the fee award and remanded for recalculation consistent with its opinion. View "HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

The plaintiff shot and killed her uncle outside her grandmother’s house, claiming ongoing abuse and financial exploitation. She recorded the incident on her cellphone, which was seized and later returned by police, who did not review the video. After being charged with manslaughter and released on bail, the trial court appointed the defendant as her new criminal defense attorney. The plaintiff informed the defendant about the video and gave him her cellphone. Without her consent, the defendant sent the video to the district attorney, who then presented it to a grand jury, resulting in an amended indictment for murder. Her bail was revoked due to the murder charge, leading to 20 months of pretrial incarceration. The defendant subsequently withdrew from the case; the murder charge was later dismissed, and the plaintiff pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter.In Jackson County Circuit Court, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing under Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or 221 (1993), that the plaintiff had not suffered “legally cognizable harm” because she had not been exonerated of her crime. The circuit court granted the motion, and the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that exoneration was a necessary element for a legal malpractice claim following a criminal conviction.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case and reversed both lower courts. It held that Stevens applies only when the alleged harm is the conviction itself or flows from the conviction. Here, the plaintiff alleged harms unrelated to her conviction, such as reputational damage, emotional distress, and economic losses from being charged with murder and pretrial incarceration. The court concluded that a legal malpractice plaintiff need not always allege exoneration to state a claim when the alleged attorney negligence caused harm independent of the conviction. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Moore-Reed v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Alan Cartwright was the beneficiary of a family trust managed by his sister, Alice Garner, and her husband, Alan Garner. Over more than a decade, Cartwright, represented by attorneys Jerry Mitchell and later his son Justin Mitchell, brought six lawsuits against the Garners challenging their administration of the trust. All of these lawsuits were ultimately resolved in favor of the Garners. After the trust litigation concluded, Cartwright, dissatisfied with his legal representation, sued the Mitchells for legal malpractice and fraudulent concealment. The Garners also sued the Mitchells and their law firms under the tort-of-another doctrine, seeking to recover attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred during the trust litigation.In the Circuit Court for Shelby County, the Mitchells moved to dismiss the Garners’ suit under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), arguing that the claims were filed in response to their exercise of the right to petition. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the TPPA did not protect attorneys alleged to have acted inconsistently with their client’s interests. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Mitchells had met their initial burden under the TPPA by showing the Garners’ suit related to the underlying trust lawsuits.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and held that, under the TPPA, an attorney filing a lawsuit on behalf of a client does not personally exercise the right to petition; rather, the attorney facilitates the client’s exercise of that right. Therefore, the Mitchells failed to demonstrate that the Garners’ suit was filed in response to the Mitchells’ own exercise of the right to petition. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, denying the Mitchells’ petition for dismissal under the TPPA. View "Garner v. Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell" on Justia Law

A beneficiary of a family trust, dissatisfied with the outcome of multiple lawsuits against his sister and her husband concerning trust administration, brought claims for legal malpractice and fraudulent concealment against the lawyers who had represented him in those actions. He alleged that the lawyers filed nonmeritorious lawsuits primarily to obtain a contingency fee and failed to keep him informed, ultimately leaving him responsible for attorney’s fees when the cases were resolved against him.The lawyers and their associated law firms responded by seeking dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), arguing that the malpractice suit was filed in response to their “exercise of the right to petition”—specifically, the act of filing lawsuits on the beneficiary’s behalf. The Circuit Court for Shelby County denied this petition, holding that an attorney sued by a former client for malpractice cannot establish that the suit was in response to the attorney’s own exercise of the right to petition. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that legal malpractice claims are not categorically excluded from the TPPA and that, in this instance, the lawyers had made a prima facie showing that the complaint related to their exercise of the right to petition.The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted permission to appeal and held that, even assuming filing a lawsuit is an “exercise of the right to petition” under the TPPA, an attorney who files suit on behalf of a client does not personally exercise that right—the attorney merely facilitates the client’s exercise of it. Thus, the lawyers could not show that the malpractice and concealment suit was brought in response to their own exercise of the right to petition. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the Court of Appeals, denied the lawyers’ TPPA petition, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Cartwright v. Thomason Hendrix, P.C." on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted following a jury trial for filing a fraudulent tax return and theft of government funds, after he submitted a tax form claiming a large refund based on a mistaken belief about a government “trust” linked to Social Security. He received and spent the refund, then requested another, which was denied. The IRS investigated, and he later filed a document stating he was deceased. His defense at trial centered on his claim that he misunderstood tax law due to information from an online forum and advice from an IRS agent.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana oversaw the criminal trial, where the petitioner was represented by attorney John Davis. During trial, Davis pursued motions under Brady v. Maryland, seeking exculpatory evidence, but the motions were denied. After conviction, Davis was removed from the Seventh Circuit Bar for misconduct in an unrelated case. The petitioner then moved for a new trial and, later, for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel based on Davis’s disciplinary history and alleged trial errors. The district court denied both motions, finding Davis’s performance did not prejudice the petitioner’s defense and that his disciplinary issues in other cases did not establish ineffectiveness in the present case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of collateral relief de novo for legal issues and for clear error regarding factual findings. The court held that there is no per se rule that concurrent or subsequent attorney discipline renders counsel ineffective; instead, a petitioner must show specific deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that counsel’s alleged errors affected the outcome of the trial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the § 2255 motion. View "Blake v USA" on Justia Law

The case centers on a dispute involving the Iowa Auditor of State’s authority to subpoena records from the City of Davenport, including documents claimed to be protected by the attorney–client privilege, in connection with a reaudit of city settlement payments. The city provided some documents but refused to produce others, asserting privilege. The Auditor sought enforcement of the subpoena, while the city moved to modify it. The controversy escalated due to public interest in the timing and propriety of the city’s settlements and the Auditor’s investigation into their legality.The Iowa District Court for Scott County ruled in favor of the Auditor, holding that Iowa law gave the Auditor broad access to city records, including attorney–client privileged materials, except for attorney work product, and ordered an in camera review of the contested documents. The city appealed, arguing the Auditor did not have authority to access attorney–client communications. During the appeal, the Auditor and the Iowa Attorney General disagreed fundamentally about the scope of the Auditor’s subpoena power and whether to defend the district court’s ruling. The Attorney General declined to make arguments supporting the Auditor’s position, citing broader state interests and a perceived conflict of interest.The Supreme Court of Iowa determined that, due to this conflict of interest, the Auditor may be represented by his own general counsel, rather than the Attorney General. The court reasoned that the Attorney General’s duties are materially limited by her responsibilities to other state agencies, constituting a conflict under Iowa’s professional conduct rules. The court further held that the Auditor does not need executive council approval to be represented by in-house counsel, as statutory provisions requiring such approval apply only to hiring outside counsel at state expense. The Attorney General was permitted to participate as amicus curiae. View "City of Davenport v. Office of the Auditor of the State of Iowa" on Justia Law

After being arrested for violating probation related to a past conviction and facing a new charge for failing to register as a sex offender, the plaintiff was indicted in federal court for possession of a firearm as a prohibited person. Initially represented by the defendant, a federal public defender, the plaintiff entered a guilty plea. Before sentencing, the attorney withdrew due to communication breakdown, and a new counsel was appointed. The plaintiff was ultimately sentenced to prison and supervised release. He later filed a motion in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawful searches, fabricated evidence, and coercion regarding his plea. The federal court rejected these claims, finding no supporting evidence and that the searches and arrest had been lawful.Subsequently, the plaintiff brought a civil action in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, alleging professional negligence by his former attorney based on similar allegations already raised in the federal proceeding. The district court noted the plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly disclose expert witnesses but primarily analyzed whether his claims were barred by collateral estoppel. It found that the issues had already been litigated and decided in the federal court, and thus granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing all claims.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that all four elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied: the issues were identical to those litigated in federal court, there was a final judgment on the merits, the parties were the same, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims previously. Therefore, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal of the claims, holding they were barred by collateral estoppel. View "Benton v. Babcock" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute that arose after a company, Motiva Performance Engineering, failed to deliver on an agreement to upgrade a vehicle for the plaintiff, resulting in a jury verdict against Motiva for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of the Unfair Practices Act. The company’s managing member, who was also its attorney, transferred Motiva’s Ferrari to another company he controlled shortly after the verdict and subsequently used the car as collateral for a loan without disclosing this to the court. Additional questionable conduct included failing to disclose or potentially backdating a promissory note and depositing insurance proceeds into his personal account. These acts occurred while the court was overseeing asset proceedings to satisfy the judgment against Motiva.Following these actions, the district court held a hearing and issued a sanctions order against the managing member and his associated entities for what it termed remedial contempt, requiring payment of the underlying judgment and a $50,000 donation to charity. The sanctions order also referenced Rule 1-011 NMRA (Rule 11) violations due to misstatements in court filings. The managing member moved for reconsideration, arguing the evidence did not support remedial contempt, but appealed the order before the motion was decided. The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions on both inherent powers and Rule 11 grounds, though a dissent questioned the breadth of conduct relied upon under Rule 11.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that the district court erred by imposing punitive contempt sanctions without affording criminal-level due process protections and that such sanctions could not be justified under the court’s inherent powers without those protections. However, the court upheld the sanctions under Rule 11, as the due process requirements for Rule 11 are not equivalent to those for contempt. The holding was limited to willful misstatements made in documents filed with the court. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Butler v. Motiva Performance Engineering, LLC" on Justia Law

A medical device company that manufactures spinal devices was indicted, along with its CEO and CFO, for allegedly paying bribes to surgeons through a sham consulting program in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The indictment claimed the surgeons did not provide bona fide consulting services, but were paid to use and order the company’s devices in surgeries covered by federal health care programs. The company’s CFO, who is not a shareholder but is one of only two officers, allegedly calculated these payments based on the volume and value of surgeries performed with the company’s devices. During the development of the consulting program, the company retained outside counsel to provide legal opinions on the agreements’ compliance with health care law, and those opinions were distributed to the surgeons.After the grand jury returned the indictment, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts addressed whether the CFO’s plan to argue at trial that the involvement of outside counsel negated his criminal intent would effect an implied waiver of the company’s attorney-client privilege. The district court initially found that if the CFO or CEO invoked an “involvement-of-counsel” defense, it would waive the corporation’s privilege over communications with counsel. Following dismissal of charges against the company, the district court focused on whether the officers collectively could waive the privilege, concluded they could, and ruled that the CFO’s planned defense would constitute an implied waiver, allowing disclosure of certain privileged communications to the government. The district court stayed its order pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s waiver order and remanded. The Court of Appeals held that (1) the record was insufficient to determine whether the CFO alone had authority to waive the company’s privilege, and (2) not every involvement-of-counsel defense necessitates a waiver. The appellate court directed the district court to reassess the issue in light of changed circumstances and to consider less intrusive remedies before finding an implied waiver. View "United States v. SpineFrontier, Inc." on Justia Law

Donald J. Trump filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against dozens of defendants, including Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, several law firms, and individuals, alleging that they conspired to spread false claims of his collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump asserted multiple claims, including two under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and three under Florida law, such as injurious falsehood and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution. He alleged that these actions caused him substantial financial harm and loss of business opportunities.After extensive pleadings, the district court dismissed Trump’s amended complaint with prejudice, holding that his federal racketeering claims were untimely and legally insufficient, and that his state law claims either failed to state a claim or were also untimely. The court found the complaint to be a “shotgun pleading” and cited numerous factual inaccuracies and implausible legal theories. The court also dismissed claims against certain defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, but did so with prejudice. Subsequently, the district court imposed sanctions on Trump and his attorneys for filing frivolous claims and pleadings, based both on its inherent authority and Rule 11, and denied Trump’s motions for reconsideration and to disqualify the judge.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s orders. The appellate court held that Trump’s racketeering claims were untimely and meritless, and that his state law claims failed for both procedural and substantive reasons. However, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over one defendant, Orbis, and therefore vacated the dismissal with prejudice as to Orbis, remanding with instructions to dismiss those claims without prejudice. The sanctions orders and other rulings were affirmed, and requests for appellate sanctions were denied. View "Trump v. Clinton" on Justia Law