Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

The district court dismissed a suit brought by Sanderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that auditors (defendants) committed securities fraud by falsely representing that they performed their audits of Advanced Battery Technologies in accordance with professional standards and that the company’s filings accurately reflected its financial condition from the 2007 through the 2010 fiscal years. The court found that the complaint failed adequately to plead scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 78u‐4. Sanderson sought to correct these deficiencies by moving to file an amended complaint. The court denied the motion, concluding that even the new allegations failed to “rise to the level of recklessness.” The Second Circuit affirmed, finding that the factual allegations did not give rise to a strong inference of either fraudulent intent or conscious recklessness, rather than mere negligence. View "In re: Advanced Battery Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

One Hope contracts with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to provide services with the objective of keeping troubled families together. Seven-month-old Marshana died while her family participated in One Hope’s program. The Cook County public guardian, as administrator of Marshana’s estate, filed a wrongful death case to recover damages against One Hope and Marshana’s mother,alleging that One Hope failed to protect Marshana from abuse or neglect and should not have allowed Marshana to be returned to her mother because of her unfavorable history and failure to complete parenting classes. Attorneys for the Public Guardian deposed the executive director of One Hope, who revealed the existence of a “Priority Review” report regarding Marshana’s case. The priority review process considers whether One Hope’s services were professionally sound, identifies “gaps in service delivery” and evaluates “whether certain outcomes have been successful or unsuccessful.” The Public Guardian moved to compel production of the report. One Hope argued that the report was protected from disclosure by the self-critical analysis privilege. The circuit court determined that the privilege did not apply. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Relevant legislative acts and omissions evince a public policy determination by the General Assembly that the type of information sought in discovery here is not subject to a “self-critical analysis privilege.” View "Harris v. One Hope United, Inc." on Justia Law

Brunton sued her brother, Kruger, as trustee of the trusts established by their late parents and as representative of their estates, and individual family members. Brunton, who was not named a beneficiary of the trusts, alleged undue influence and her mother’s diminished capacity. The elder Krugers had consulted with an accounting firm (Striegel) for estate planning. They provided Striegel with confidential information about their family, income, assets, and goals. Striegel provided information to the attorney who prepared the Krugers’ trust documents and wills. Brunton and the Estates issued subpoenas seeking discovery of the information and documents. A CPA at Striegel complied with the Estates’ subpoenas, but did not provide the documents to Brunton. Striegel invoked the Illinois Public Accounting Act (225 ILCS 450/27), governing confidentiality of records. The circuit court ordered Striegel to produce tax documents, but held that the estate planning documents were privileged. Brunton then issued deposition subpoenas to a Striegel CPA and a non-CPA employee, seeking production of the estate planning documents. The court again found the estate planning documents privileged, but held that Striegel had waived the privilege by providing the documents to the representative of the Estates. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The privilege belongs to the accountant, not the client, and there is no testamentary exception to the privilege, but the accountant waived the privilege by disclosing information to one party. He cannot claim the privilege to avoid disclosure of the same information to the other party. View "Brunton v. Kruger" on Justia Law

Amis alleged that his former attorneys committed malpractice by “caus[ing]” him to execute a settlement agreement that converted his company’s corporate obligations into Amis’s personal obligations without advising Amis that he had little to no risk of personal liability in the underlying litigation. All advice he received from the attorneys regarding the settlement agreement was given during mediation. The attorneys argued that Amis could not obtain evidence to support his claims, and that the law firm could not produce evidence to defend itself, because the disclosure of such evidence was barred by the mediation confidentiality statutes, Evidence Code section 1115. The trial court agreed on both counts and entered summary judgment for the firm. The court of appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court has broadly applied the mediation confidentiality statutes and all but categorically prohibited judicially crafted exceptions, even in situations where justice seems to call for a different result. View "Amis v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP" on Justia Law

This matter stemmed from a recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana regarding the failure of respondent Justice of the Peace Lorne L. Landry to comply with the financial reporting requirements of Supreme Court Rule XXXIX. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the record established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent willfully and knowingly failed to comply with the filing requirement of Rule XXXIX, thereby subjecting him to discipline. Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500, plus costs. Respondent was further ordered to file his 2011 financial disclosure statement. View "In re: Justice of the Peace Lorne L. Landry, Plaquemines Parish, Ward 8" on Justia Law

This matter comes before the court on the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana that Judge Sheva M. Sims of the Shreveport City Court, Caddo Parish, be suspended without pay for 90 days and ordered to reimburse the Commission's costs. The charge arose from an incident that occurred between Judge Sims and an assistant city prosecutor, Katherine Gilmer, on April 24, 2012, wherein Judge Sims stated that Ms. Gilmer was “held in contempt” of court and then ordered the dismissal of fifteen criminal cases on the docket that day. After reviewing the record and applicable law, the Supreme Court found that the charge against Judge Sims was supported by clear and convincing evidence. However, the Court rejected the recommended discipline and instead ordered Judge Sims be suspended without pay for a period of 30 days. Furthermore, the Court ordered Judge Sims to reimburse the Commission’s costs incurred relative to its investigation and prosecution of this case. View "In re: Judge Sheva M. Sims, Shreveport City Court, Caddo Parish" on Justia Law

In March 2011, the Chief Judge of the Clayton Judicial Circuit, at the request of the Clayton County District Attorney, issued an order authorizing the impaneling of a special purpose grand jury to investigate certain alleged public corruption. The special purpose grand jury issued subpoenas to various witnesses, including appellee John Lampl, who testified before it in June 2011. In July 2011, the special purpose grand jury returned a 16-count bill of indictment against Lampl on charges of conspiracy in restraint of free and open competition, false statements and writings, and perjury. The indictment was subsequently nolle prossed in the aftermath of the Court of Appeals’ holding in "Kenerly v. Georgia," (715 SE2d 688) (2011)), that the authority of a special purpose grand jury is limited to conducting investigations and does not include the power to issue indictments. Shortly thereafter, in September 2011, Lampl was indicted by a regular Clayton County grand jury on eight counts, including one perjury count, similar to those charged in the special purpose grand jury’s initial indictment. The conspiracy and false statements counts all pertain to alleged conduct by Lampl in his capacity as City Manager for the City of Morrow, in connection with a City real estate development project known as "Olde Towne Morrow." The Georgia Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari in this case to determine whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing a particular count of the indictment and suppressing statements made by the defendant before the special purpose grand jury. While the Supreme Court agreed with the superior court’s conclusion that the special purpose grand jury exceeded the scope of its authority in its investigation, the Court held that the relief granted was improper. The Court therefore reversed. View "Georgia v. Lampl" on Justia Law

Client retained Attorney to handle various legal claims pertaining to the management of a trust. Attorney later came to represent Client and his wife in matters of their own estate planning and administration. Upon Attorney’s advice, Client made loans to both the Attorney’s law firm and to a business from which Attorney received a commission for the referral. Attorney did not make a written disclosure or advise Client to seek independent legal advice regarding these transactions. The loans were never repaid. Client filed a malpractice action against Attorney for breach of fiduciary duty. Judgment was entered in favor of Client. Client subsequently filed an equitable garnishment action against Attorney’s malpractice insurer (Insurer) seeking to recover the judgment under the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Insurer, concluding that coverage was excluded under the policy’s “legal representative of investors” exclusionary clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the trial court was correct in holding that the exclusionary clause unambiguously excluded coverage for Attorney’s injurious acts and omissions. View "Taylor v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Sanowicz and Bacal are licensed real estate salespersons. Sanowicz alleges that he and Bacal agreed to share commissions earned by either of them on certain sales of real property, but that Bacal breached that agreement. The two did share some commissions. The trial court dismissed, based on Business and Professions Code section 10137,4 which provides that it is unlawful for a real estate agent to accept compensation from any person other than the real estate broker under whom he or she is licensed. The court of appeal reversed, holding that licensed real estate agents may agree to share commissions earned under certain circumstances. In stating that an agent may pay commission to another licensee, the Legislature did not limit the payee to a licensed broker; instead it required that any such payment be made “through the broker” thus permitting payments to be made to licensed real estate professionals, whether agents or brokers. View "Sanowicz v. Bacal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought to bring a legal malpractice claim against his criminal defense attorneys and their respective law firms. The circuit court dismissed the criminal malpractice claim on the grounds that the settlement and release of some defendants by way of a release agreement was a release of all defendants. Plaintiff subsequently filed a legal malpractice suit against the law firm that represented him in the criminal malpractice claim (Defendant), arguing that the firm breached its duty to him. A jury found Defendant liable to Plaintiff and awarded judgment in the amount of $5.75 million. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s denial of Defendant’s second plea in bar, reversed the circuit court’s order affirming the jury award, vacated the jury award, and remanded the case, holding that the circuit court erred in refusing to sustain Defendant’s second plea in bar in which Defendant argued that Plaintiff was barred from recovering on his legal malpractice claim because, as a matter of law, Defendant did not breach its duty by failing to correctly anticipate a judicial ruling on an unsettled legal issue. View "Smith v. McLaughlin" on Justia Law