Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

After Fannie Mae foreclosed upon and acquired the home at issue in this case, Fannie Mae hired Hayman Residential Engineering Services, Inc. to prepare a structural engineering report on the home. Based on the report, Fannie Mae made some of the recommended repairs. Fannie Mae subsequently sold the home to buyers, who then sold the home to Roger and Dorothy Johnson. Thereafter, the Johnsons discovered that the estimated cost of making all necessary repairs to the home exceeded its value. The Johnsons filed a professional negligence claim against Hayman. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Hayman, concluding that Hayman did not owe the Johnsons a duty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Hayman did not owe a professional duty to the Johnsons because they did not suffer a foreseeable harm stemming from Hayman’s alleged negligence, and therefore, a professional negligence claim could not be established. View "Johnson v. Hayman & Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

Georgia citizen George Skipper was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a logging truck that was driven by Harold Moors and owned by Specialty Logging, LLC. Specialty had a commercial automobile insurance policy with a $1,000,000 per occurrence limit, which was issued by ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company (ACE). Following the accident, Skipper retained an attorney who wrote a demand letter to ACE offering to settle the case for the limits of the Policy. ACE retained two lawyers from Atlanta, Brantley Rowlen and Erin Coia, to represent Specialty and Moors. Specialty and Moors offered Skipper $50,000. Not satisfied with that offer, Skipper and his wife filed a lawsuit in the Allendale County Court of Common Pleas against Specialty and Moors. Unbeknownst to ACE or its attorneys, the Skippers entered into a settlement with Specialty and Moors, agreeing to execute a Confession of Judgment for $4,500,000, in which they admitted liability for the Skippers' injuries and losses. The Specialty Parties also agreed to pursue a legal malpractice claim against ACE and its attorneys Rowlen and Coia, and assigned the predominant interest in that claim to the Skippers.1 In exchange for the Specialty Parties' admission of liability, the Skippers agreed not to execute the judgment as long as the Specialty Parties cooperated in the legal malpractice litigation against Defendants. Armed with the assignment, the Skippers and Specialty Parties filed a legal malpractice action against the attorneys, also with the Allendale County court. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. In federal court, ACE and its attorneys argued that the assignment of the malpractice claim was invalid and that the Skippers had no valid claims to assert. Because the question of whether a legal malpractice claim could be assigned between adversaries in litigation in which the alleged malpractice arose was a novel question in South Carolina, the South Carolina Supreme Court accepted a certified question South Carolina law from the federal district court. After review, the South Carolina Court held that in South Carolina, the assignment of a legal malpractice claim between adversaries in litigation in which the alleged malpractice arose was prohibited. View "Skipper v. ACE Property" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured while working at a paper mill. Plaintiff hired Defendant, an attorney, to represent her in her workers’ compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded Plaintiff, still represented by Defendant, partial incapacity benefits. Plaintiff later settled with her employer. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging that, due to Defendant’s failure to exercise due care and negligence, she was awarded partial incapacity benefits rather than total incapacity benefits. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was correctly granted where the jury could not assess damages without resorting to speculation. View "Allen v. McCann" on Justia Law

"This is a case of egregious attorney misconduct." Because of the cumulative effect of the attorney's misconduct, the Court of Appeal felt compelled to reverse the judgment she obtained on behalf of her client, Caltrans. "While Judge Di Cesare showed the patience of Job – usually a virtue in a judge – that patience here had the effect of favoring one side over the other. He allowed [the attorney] to emphasize irrelevant and inflammatory points concerning the plaintiff's character so often that he effectively gave CalTrans an unfair advantage." View "Martinez v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Bell established mutual funds, raised $2.5 billion, and invested in vehicles managed by Petters, who said that he was financing Costco’s electronics inventory. Instead he was running a Ponzi scheme, which collapsed in 2008. The scheme involved a claim that money lent to Petters entities was secured by Costco’s inventory and that repayment was ensured by a “lockbox” arrangement under which Costco would make payments into accounts that the Funds (not Petters) controlled. Petters insisted that the Funds not contact Costco, to avoid upsetting his favorable business relations. Bell and Petters went to prison for fraud. The Funds’ trustee in bankruptcy filed multiple suits. The district court dismissed a claim of legal malpractice. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Even if Bell was determined to do business with Petters, the Fund’s lawyers ould have explained how to structure the transactions in a less risky way, and if Petters refused to cooperate then Bell might have reconsidered lending the Funds’ money. The Trustee alleges that the firm did not offer any advice about how relative risks correspond to different legal devices, and its complaint states a legally recognized claim. Whether the law firm has a defense, and whether any neglect on its part caused injury, are subjects for the district court. View "Peterson v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP" on Justia Law

Choice Hotels sued SBQI, its managers, and investors, for breach of a franchise agreement. The defendants did not answer the complaint. The court entered a default. One defendant, Chawla, an Illinois attorney, had represented the others. Other defendants asked Chawla to find a new attorney. They claimed that they had been unaware that their signatures were on the franchise agreement and that the signatures are forgeries. Johnson agreed to try to vacate the default, negotiate a settlement, and defend against the demand for damages. Johnson filed an appearance and took some steps, but did not answer the complaint or move to vacate the default, engage in discovery concerning damages, or reply to a summary judgment motion on damages. In emails, Johnson insisted that he was trying to settle the litigation. He did not return phone calls. The court set damages at $430,286.75 and entered final judgment. A new attorney moved to set aside the judgment more than a year after its entry, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), which covers “any other reason that justifies relief” and requires “extraordinary circumstances.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The defendants must bear the consequences of their inaction. They were able to monitor the proceedings, but did not follow through. View "Choice Hotels Int'l Inc. v. Grover" on Justia Law

Moje, playing minor league hockey, lost an eye during a game, and sued Oakley, which made his visor, and the League. Instead of notifying its insurer, the League hired LoFaro. Oakley’s attorney called the League’s President, to ask why it had not answered the complaint. LoFaro claimed that an answer had been filed, but the docket did not reflect any filing. Moje moved for default. LoFaro did not respond, nor did he respond after the court entered the default and permitted Moje to prove damages. The court entered a final judgment of $800,000 against the League. After the League learned of collection efforts, it notified its insurer. A lawyer hired by the insurer unsuccessfully moved, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) to set aside the judgment within six months of its entry. Rule 60(b)(1), allows relief on account of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Abandoned clients who take reasonable steps to protect themselves can expect to have judgments reopened under Rule 60(b)(1), but the League is not in that category. Its remedy is against LoFaro. View "Moje v. Federal Hockey League LLC" on Justia Law

This was a legal malpractice case. Defendant Michelle Myer-Bennett filed a peremptory exception of peremption asserting plaintiff Tracy Lomont filed her malpractice claim beyond the three-year peremptive period set forth in La. R.S. 9:5605. Lomont opposed the exception, arguing the peremptive period should not have applied because Myer-Bennett engaged in fraudulent behavior which prevented application of the peremptive period. Lomont hired Myer-Bennett to represent her in a divorce and related domestic matters, which included partitioning the community property. Citibank obtained a default judgment against John Lomont (the ex-husband) on a delinquent account. Citibank recorded the judgment in the mortgage records in Jefferson Parish as a lien against the home. Lomont attempted to refinance the mortgage on the home and learned from the bank that the settlement agreement, giving her full ownership of the home, was never recorded in the mortgage and conveyance records. Lomont contacted Myer-Bennett to advise her of the problem. According to Myer-Bennett, because it was her standard practice to record such documents, she initially believed Lomont was given inaccurate information by the bank. Upon investigation, Myer-Bennett discovered that she had not recorded the agreement. Myer-Bennett recorded the agreement the next day, September 30, 2010. In December 2010, Lomont was notified that her application to refinance the loan was denied because of Citibank’s lien on the property. According to Myer-Bennett, once she became aware of the Citibank lien she discussed with Lomont the fact she committed malpractice and gave Lomont several options to proceed, including hiring another lawyer to sue her, or allowing Myer-Bennett to file suit against John Lomont and/or Citibank to have the lien removed. Myer-Bennett stated. Lomont chose not to pursue a malpractice action, but wanted defendant to fix the problem. Lomont denied Myer-Bennett ever notified her she had committed malpractice. Lomont contended Myer-Bennett never mentioned malpractice in December 2010, but simply advised she would have the Citibank lien removed from the property by filing lawsuits against John Lomont and Citibank. The district court sustained the exception of peremption and the court of appeal affirmed. Based on the facts of this case, the Supreme Court found defendant committed fraud within the meaning of La. R.S. 9:5605(E). Thus, the peremptive periods contained in La. R.S. 9:5605 were not applicable and plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was governed by the one-year prescriptive period in La. C.C. art. 3492. Further, the facts of this case supported an application of the doctrine of contra non valentem. Because the Court found plaintiff filed suit within one year of discovering defendant’s malpractice, the Court held the lower courts erred in sustaining defendant’s exception of peremption. View "Lomont v. Myer-Bennett" on Justia Law

Pro se plaintiff George Farmer, a resident of Colorado and a licensed attorney, sued defendant Banco Popular under federal and state law to challenge Banco’s demand that he pay off the full amount owed under a $150,000 Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) his deceased father obtained in 2001. In 2012, the parties informed the district court they had reached a settlement: Banco was to pay Farmer $30,000 and forgive some principal, unpaid interest, and attorney’s fees. Farmer would pay $137,380.94 in satisfaction of the HELOC, due later that year. Farmer “began to negotiate a number of the . . . terms of the draft agreement.” Banco “sent Farmer the completed settlement agreement, but Farmer sought changes to the exhibits.” These exhibits included a deed in lieu of foreclosure and a satisfaction of mortgage. After Farmer received the revised exhibits he still would not sign the settlement agreement, but “again sought more changes, including the amount, timing, and structure of the payment.” Banco ultimately filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Notwithstanding his prior representations to the court, Farmer sought to reduce his net payment of $107,380.34 under the terms of the agreement to $100,000, but pay it by October 1 rather than by October 15. The court held another hearing on September 10 at which Farmer again told the court the settlement was fine: “‘[W]e are all in agreement to enforce the settlement,’ and ‘the only thing that remains is the date that my payment is due.’” The parties then agreed that Banco would not pay Farmer $30,000 as previously agreed, but instead, Farmer would pay Banco $107,380.34 by November 15, 2012. “Banco Popular sent Farmer an agreement reflecting the new amount and due date, but instead of signing, Farmer asked for changes and additions. Banco Popular refused most of those changes and asked Farmer to sign the revised agreement, which he never did.” A prior Tenth Circuit decision recited, in detail, Farmer’s ongoing conduct that led the district judge to “warn that he would impose the most severe sanctions and penalties if the parties did not comply with his order” enforcing the settlement. "Now here we are again:" Farmer appealed the district court order imposing fees and costs on him as a punitive sanction. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order, as modified: sanctions imposed on Farmer in the form of fees and costs due and payable to Banco totaled $50,824.53; Farmer was admonished that further prolongation of this appeal absent good cause would result in the Court imposing its own monetary sanctions on him pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38. The Clerk of Court was directed to initiate a formal attorney disciplinary proceeding for the Court to consider further whether additional discipline is appropriate. View "Farmer v. Banco Popular" on Justia Law

Richard Pines, D.O. appealed the district court’s decision on a disciplinary order of the Idaho Board of Medicine. The Board brought disciplinary proceedings against Pines following reports that he had induced young men into sexual contact by saying he was required to give full-body massages to naked practice patients in order to be relicensed as a doctor of osteopathy. Following a hearing, the Board found Pines committed four counts of professional misconduct. It revoked Pines’ license and ordered that he pay costs and attorney fees. The district court affirmed the four counts of misconduct but vacated the award of costs and attorney fees. Pines appealed and the Board cross-appealed. Before the Supreme Court, Pines argued: (1) that he was disciplined for uncharged conduct, resulting in a violation of his due process rights; (2) that evidence in the record was insufficient to support certain alleged violations made against him; (3) that as applied, his due process rights were violated by the Board's conclusion that four individuals were Pines' patients. The Board argued that the district court erred in vacating the Board's order on attorney fees and costs. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court found that two of the "patients" were not, indeed, Pines' patients, and that Pines' due process rights were not violated. The Court affirmed the Board's decision on Counts I and II, but vacated the district court's decision on Counts III and V (which pertained to the two "patients"). The case was remanded for further proceedings, including additional consideration of the issue of costs and fees. View "Pines v. Idaho Board of Medicine" on Justia Law