Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Chris Robles and the California Voting Rights Initiative filed a lawsuit against the City of Ontario, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act and the California Voting Rights Act by conducting at-large elections for city council members, which they claimed diluted the electoral influence of Latino voters. The parties eventually settled, agreeing to transition to district-based elections by 2024 and included a provision for attorney fees incurred up to that point.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County initially sustained the defendants' demurrer with leave to amend, but the parties settled and submitted a stipulated judgment. The stipulated judgment included a provision for $300,000 in attorney fees and outlined the process for transitioning to district elections. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to enforce the stipulated judgment, alleging the city violated several statutory requirements related to the districting process. The trial court found the city had not complied with the stipulated judgment but denied plaintiffs' request for additional attorney fees, stating the settlement did not provide for fees beyond those already paid.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek additional attorney fees under the plain language of the stipulated judgment, which allowed for fees incurred in enforcing its terms. The court reversed the trial court's order denying attorney fees and remanded the case to determine whether plaintiffs were prevailing parties and, if so, the appropriate amount of attorney fees to be awarded. The appellate court clarified that the trial court's assessment of the prevailing party should focus on whether the plaintiffs achieved their litigation objectives. View "Robles v. City of Ontario" on Justia Law

Enrique Sanchez, the petitioner, sought a writ of mandate to vacate a trial court order directing the San Bernardino County Public Defender to assign a new attorney to represent him. This order was issued after evidence suggested that the deputy public defender currently assigned to Sanchez's case made racially charged remarks during plea negotiations, potentially violating the Racial Justice Act (RJA). Sanchez argued that the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion.The trial court received a motion from the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence and evaluate the deputy public defender's conflict of interest. The motion included a declaration from the prosecutor detailing the deputy public defender's remarks, which implied racial bias. During a closed hearing, the trial court read the prosecutor's declaration to Sanchez and asked if he wanted the current public defender to continue representing him. Sanchez expressed his desire to retain his current counsel. However, the trial court later ordered the public defender's office to assign a new attorney, citing potential RJA issues and the risk of ineffective assistance of counsel.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded 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 trial court's decision to prevent potential future RJA claims and ensure adequate representation was within its discretion. 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

The Comedy Store, a stand-up comedy venue in Los Angeles, was forced to close for over a year due to COVID-19 restrictions. In July 2021, the Store hired Moss Adams LLP, an accounting firm, to help apply for a Shuttered Venue Operator Grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration. The parties signed an agreement that included a Washington choice of law provision and a forum selection clause mandating disputes be resolved in Washington state courts. The Store alleges Moss Adams failed to inform it of the grant program's impending expiration, causing the Store to miss the application deadline and lose an $8.5 million grant.The Store initially filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Los Angeles, but the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Store then refiled in the Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting claims including gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Moss Adams moved to dismiss or stay the action based on the forum selection clause. The trial court granted the motion, contingent on Moss Adams stipulating that the Store could exercise its right to a jury trial in Washington state. Moss Adams provided such a stipulation, and the trial court signed an order to that effect.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in failing to properly allocate the burden of proof to Moss Adams to show that litigating in Washington would not diminish the Store’s unwaivable right to a jury trial. The appellate court concluded that Moss Adams did not meet this burden, as it did not demonstrate that Washington law would provide the same or greater rights to a jury trial or that a Washington court would apply California law. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded with instructions to deny Moss Adams’s motion to dismiss or stay the action. View "The Comedy Store v. Moss Adams LLP" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute among co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust, specifically Allison Littlefield, her brothers David and Scott Littlefield, and her aunt Denise Sobel. Allison filed a petition alleging various grievances, including the removal of co-trustees, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the Trust. She claimed that the co-trustees misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, and restricted her and her husband's use of the Ranch. Additionally, she alleged that the co-trustees failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who had been hostile towards her and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to prevent lawsuits that chill the exercise of free speech and petition rights. The court found that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, concluding that the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the petition was based on protected activity. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees. The appellate court found that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous because it was entirely without merit, as no reasonable attorney would conclude 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 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. Mark did not appear at trial, and the court entered judgment against him, awarding Jennifer $250,000 in damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. Kovtun argued that Jennifer’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 and the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). 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. The judgment against Kovtun was affirmed. View "Shenefield v. Kovtun" on Justia Law

BrunoBuilt, Inc. contracted with William and Amy Dempsey to build a home in the Boise Foothills. With the help of insurance agent Randy L. Richardson, BrunoBuilt purchased a Tailored Protection Policy (TPP) from Auto-Owners Insurance Company, which included "Builders' Risk" coverage. The policy excluded damage caused by landslides. In 2016, the Dempsey project was not included in the TPP renewal, allegedly due to Richardson's negligence. Shortly after, the nearly completed Dempsey home was damaged by a landslide. BrunoBuilt sued Richardson and Auto-Owners, claiming Richardson negligently failed to advise about landslide coverage and failed to renew the Dempsey project. BrunoBuilt also claimed Auto-Owners was vicariously liable for Richardson's negligence.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners, concluding Richardson was not acting as Auto-Owners' agent and that the policy excluded landslide damage. BrunoBuilt appealed.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. The court held that the 2015 policy, which excluded only naturally occurring landslides, might still apply because Auto-Owners did not provide the required notice of the reduction in coverage in the 2016 policy, which excluded both naturally occurring and human-caused landslides. The court also determined that Auto-Owners bore the burden of proving the applicability of the landslide exclusion. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the 2015 policy's coverage continued and whether Richardson was acting as Auto-Owners' agent when he failed to renew the policy. The court did not award attorney fees to either party. View "BrunoBuilt, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A client sued its lawyer for legal malpractice after losing a case. The client had previously been sued for fraud and lost, resulting in a significant judgment against it. The client then assigned its malpractice claim against its lawyer to the opposing party in the fraud case, hoping to share in any recovery. However, the court had previously held that such assignments are generally not allowed because they can lead to a reversal of positions that is demeaning to the justice system.In the lower courts, the trial court found the lawyer negligent but not grossly negligent, and the jury awarded damages to the client. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the client could pursue its own malpractice claim but reversed the directed verdict on gross negligence, remanding the case for a new trial. In the second trial, the jury again found the lawyer negligent and grossly negligent, awarding significant damages. The court of appeals reversed the judgment due to an improper jury instruction and remanded for a third trial.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the client could pursue its own malpractice claim despite the arrangement with the opposing party. The court found that while there was evidence of the lawyer's negligence, the evidence that the lawyer's negligence was the sole cause of the fraud judgment was conclusory. The court also held that there was no evidence of gross negligence. Therefore, the court affirmed the remand for a new trial on negligence but reversed the judgment on gross negligence, rendering a take-nothing judgment on that claim. View "HENRY S. MILLER COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. NEWSOM, TERRY & NEWSOM, LLP" on Justia Law

Hark Orchids, LP (plaintiff) filed a legal malpractice action against its former attorney and law firm, William Buie and Conklin Benham, PC (defendants). In 2015, defendants represented plaintiff in a workers’ compensation lawsuit brought by a former employee. During the litigation, the former employee informed defendants of additional claims against plaintiff and offered a global settlement for $125,000. Defendants did not inform plaintiff of this offer and settled only the workers’ compensation claim for $35,823.84. Subsequently, the former employee filed another lawsuit against plaintiff, leading to significant additional legal fees for plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that these fees would have been avoided if defendants had informed them of the global settlement offer.The Kalamazoo Circuit Court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants, reasoning that under the American rule, attorney fees are not recoverable as damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the American rule barred the recovery of attorney fees as damages in this context. Judge Shapiro concurred, noting that the decision was mandated by precedent but questioned the applicability of the rule given the acceptance of these damages in other states.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that while the American rule generally prohibits the recovery of attorney fees incurred in litigation, it does not apply to attorney fees that are damages resulting from legal malpractice. The Court clarified that clients can recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred to mitigate the harm caused by legal malpractice. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine if plaintiff could prove the malpractice and the reasonableness of the attorney fees incurred. View "Hark Orchids LP v. Buie" on Justia Law

The case involves Lewis Leon Bryson, who was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent (SIWOC) following a jury trial. On May 2, 2020, Bryson's neighbor observed him spraying a naked and screaming Valerie Moreni with a hose in his backyard. When police arrived, Moreni was found unresponsive and covered by a blanket. She later claimed Bryson had raped her. Medical examination revealed she was highly intoxicated and had injuries consistent with her allegations. Bryson was arrested and charged with aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (ASIWOC), SIWOC, tampering with evidence, and obstructing a peace officer.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, presided over the trial. Bryson and Moreni provided conflicting testimonies about their relationship and the events leading up to the incident. Bryson claimed their interactions were consensual and that Moreni was aware of their sexual activities. The jury found Bryson guilty of SIWOC and obstructing a peace officer.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Bryson argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not proposing correct jury instructions and that the District Court erred by excluding evidence about Moreni’s drinking habits and alcohol withdrawal symptoms. The Supreme Court held that the jury instructions were correct and that Bryson’s counsel was not deficient. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence about Moreni’s past drinking habits, as it allowed sufficient evidence regarding her condition and credibility.The Supreme Court affirmed Bryson’s conviction, concluding that the instructions and evidentiary rulings were appropriate and did not prejudice Bryson’s defense. View "State v. Bryson" on Justia Law

Edward Mero was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of tampering with physical evidence. The first murder involved his roommate, who was found dead in their apartment after a fire in 2013. The second murder involved a woman he hired for a date in December 2014, whose body was found in a shallow grave in May 2015. Mero was arrested in 2017 and charged with both murders and related tampering charges.The trial court joined the charges in a single indictment and denied Mero's motion to sever them, reasoning that the distinct evidence for each murder would allow the jury to consider each charge separately. During the trial, a juror was dismissed after overhearing derogatory comments made by defense counsel. Mero later moved to vacate his convictions, arguing that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest due to an undisclosed business relationship with an Assistant District Attorney (ADA). The trial court denied the motion, finding that the potential conflict did not affect the defense.The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decisions, including the denial of the severance motion and the motion to vacate. The court found that the evidence for each murder was distinct enough for the jury to consider separately and that the potential conflict of interest did not impact the defense. Two Justices dissented, arguing that the proof for the second murder was significantly stronger and that the jury would likely be prejudiced by the joinder.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever, as the jury was capable of considering the evidence for each charge separately. The court also found that the potential conflict of interest did not operate on the defense, and Mero's other claims were either without merit or unreviewable. View "People v Mero" on Justia Law