Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

An Assistant District Attorney (ADA) was accused of misconduct for observing jury deliberations during a first-degree murder trial. The ADA entered a security office where the jury's deliberations were being monitored via security cameras and watched the proceedings for over two hours. The ADA did not disclose this to the judge or opposing counsel and later misrepresented the reasons for his actions and the duration of his observation.The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found clear and convincing evidence that the ADA violated several rules, including conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and engaging in deceit or misrepresentation. The Tribunal recommended public censure and assessment of costs.The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo and found that the ADA's actions violated multiple rules of professional conduct, including committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's trustworthiness, engaging in deceit or misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court determined that the appropriate discipline was a six-month suspension due to the serious nature of the misconduct, which undermined public trust in the legal system and brought discredit upon the legal profession.The Court also granted the amended application to assess costs against the ADA, totaling $6,104.91. The ADA was ordered to comply with the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and to pay the assessed costs within ninety days. View "STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. SHIELDS" on Justia Law

Members of a local union sued their national parent organization for imposing an illegal trusteeship. The plaintiffs, members of NABET-CWA Local 41, claimed that the national union imposed the trusteeship in bad faith following a local officer election. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a temporary restraining order, later converting it into a preliminary injunction. The parties eventually settled, resulting in a consent judgment that dissolved the trusteeship and required the national union to pay Local 41 approximately $26,000 in trusteeship costs. The only unresolved issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. The court acknowledged its broad discretion and the American Rule, which presumes against fee shifting. It considered two exceptions: bad faith and common benefit. The court found that while the national union acted in bad faith in imposing the trusteeship, both parties litigated the dispute in good faith, thus not justifying fee shifting. Additionally, the court recognized that the plaintiffs conferred common benefits on Local 41 and the national union but concluded that these benefits were not substantial enough to merit an award of attorneys' fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the lower court had appropriately applied the American Rule and its exceptions. The district court's decision to deny attorneys' fees was deemed reasonable and within its broad discretion, as it provided a sound explanation for its conclusions. The appellate court emphasized the highly deferential standard of review for such decisions and upheld the district court's judgment. View "Siddiqui v National Association of Broadcast Employees & Tec" on Justia Law

A woman sued her former attorneys for malpractice, alleging they failed to advocate for her interests during mediation, resulting in an unfavorable settlement for her and her business. The superior court granted summary judgment to the attorneys, concluding that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations and denied her motion to amend her complaint.The superior court ruled that the statute of limitations for the malpractice claim had expired, as the woman filed her suit more than three years after her injury occurred. The court also rejected her argument for tolling the limitations period under the continuous representation rule, concluding that her communications with the attorneys did not show continued representation in her personal capacity. Additionally, the court rejected her equitable estoppel argument, reasoning that the alleged conflicts of interest did not raise concerns under the Rules of Professional Conduct.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the continuous representation rule applies to legal malpractice claims, delaying the accrual of the claim until the attorney's representation in the matter ceases. The court found a genuine factual dispute about when the attorneys' representation ended, vacating the superior court's decision and remanding for further proceedings. The court also affirmed the superior court's ruling that the attorneys are not barred by the doctrine of fraudulent estoppel from pleading the statute of limitations defense, as the woman failed to present evidence that her delay in filing suit was in reasonable reliance on the nondisclosure. Finally, the court vacated and remanded the superior court's decision to deny leave to amend the complaint, as the claims were not futile and leave to amend should have been granted. View "Sheldon-Lee v. Birch Horton Bittner, Inc." on Justia Law

On January 12, 2020, Harold Walker Jr. was involved in a shooting incident at the intersection of Colonial Circle and Old Canton Road in Jackson, Mississippi. Witnesses saw a white car swerve to block a van, and the driver of the white car, identified as Walker, fired multiple shots into the van, killing Bryant Robinson. Walker fled the scene but was pursued by police and later apprehended. Evidence included eyewitness testimonies, security footage, and physical evidence linking Walker to the crime.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County convicted Walker of first-degree murder, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and felony fleeing from law enforcement. Walker appealed, raising five issues: the trial court's refusal to give a lesser-included-offense instruction for heat of passion manslaughter, the sufficiency and weight of the evidence for the first-degree murder conviction, the admission of his statement to law enforcement, the failure to transcribe the jury instructions conference, and ineffective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that there was no evidentiary basis for a heat of passion manslaughter instruction, the evidence was sufficient to support the first-degree murder conviction, and the trial court did not err in admitting Walker's statement. The court also found that the failure to transcribe the jury instructions conference did not prejudice Walker, and his counsel was not ineffective. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment. View "Walker v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

Daniel Escamilla, a certified fugitive recovery agent, searched the home of Lan Ting Wu and Andy Yu Feng Yang in 2012, looking for Yang’s brother, who was wanted on felony drug trafficking charges. Yang, Wu, and their minor son sued Escamilla for assault, battery, trespass, false imprisonment, and emotional distress. Their lawyer, John Vannucci, represented them. Escamilla defended the search as supported by probable cause and cross-complained against Yang for abuse of process. In 2019, a jury found in favor of Escamilla on all claims and awarded him $20,000 in damages. On August 30, 2021, Escamilla filed a malicious prosecution action against Yang, Wu, and Vannucci.The Alameda County Superior Court granted Vannucci’s motion to strike Escamilla’s complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), agreeing that the one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys under section 340.6 applied, making the suit time-barred. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the appropriate statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action against an attorney. The court held that section 340.6, which provides a one-year limitations period for certain suits against attorneys, does not apply to claims brought by parties who were never their clients or the intended beneficiaries of their clients. Instead, the two-year statute of limitations under section 335.1 applies to malicious prosecution claims brought by formerly adverse parties. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to consider any unaddressed arguments in the anti-SLAPP motion. View "Escamilla v. Vannucci" on Justia Law

Dorothy Golobe died in 1992, leaving behind a three-story building in New York. Her nephew, John Golobe, became the estate's administrator, believing his father, Zangwill Golobe, was Dorothy's only surviving heir. An attorney testified that Dorothy's other brother, Yale Golobe, had predeceased her. Surrogate's Court found Zangwill to be the sole distributee, and he renounced his interest in favor of John, who maintained the property. However, Yale was actually alive at Dorothy's death and should have inherited half of the estate. John discovered this error in 2018 and claimed sole ownership through adverse possession. Yale's successor, the Emil Kraus Revocable Trust, counterclaimed for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.Supreme Court granted summary judgment to John, declaring him the sole owner and dismissing the Trust's counterclaims. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that John had established adverse possession and dismissing the fraud and fiduciary duty claims due to lack of evidence of scienter or reliance and no extraordinary duty to confirm a distributee's death.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that John had acquired sole ownership through adverse possession, as his possession was hostile, under a claim of right, and open and notorious. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Trust's counterclaims, finding no triable issue of fact regarding fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. The court emphasized that a cotenant may obtain full ownership even when neither party is aware of the co-tenancy, provided the statutory period and other adverse possession requirements are met. View "Golobe v Mielnicki" on Justia Law

Henry Lamar Willis was admitted to the Bar in 2006 and established a law firm. In 2012, he failed to respond to a Formal Complaint by the State Bar regarding his improper handling and conversion of $30,000 in settlement funds. The special master entered a default judgment, and the Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred Willis in 2013 for violations of several Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, including acting with reasonable diligence, keeping client funds separate, and not engaging in dishonest conduct.Willis sought readmission to the Bar, claiming a twelve-year rehabilitation process. The Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants reviewed his application and recommended granting it. Willis provided a statement of rehabilitation, explaining personal and professional hardships, including a divorce and loss of a city council re-election bid. He detailed his efforts to rebuild his life, including paying all due funds, engaging in various personal development activities, and receiving support from several attorneys and a city council member.The Fitness Board conducted an investigation, including notifying the State Bar, the public, and the judiciary. The State Bar noted a pending grievance at the time of Willis's disbarment, which was declared moot. Willis paid $4,800 owed to the Clients' Security Fund. At an informal conference, Willis took responsibility for his past conduct and demonstrated his rehabilitation.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the record and concluded that Willis had demonstrated rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. The Court granted Willis's Application for Certification of Fitness, allowing him to be readmitted to the Bar upon satisfying all requirements, including passing the Georgia Bar Examination. View "In re Willis" on Justia Law

Misael Padron, a Cuban citizen granted asylum in the United States, appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction for carjacking, which he had entered pursuant to a no-contest plea. Padron argued that he did not understand the immigration consequences of his plea, which included mandatory detention, denial of naturalization, and near-certain termination of asylum and deportation. He provided evidence of his mental health challenges related to persecution in Cuba and claimed his defense counsel did not adequately inform him of the immigration consequences.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Padron’s motion, partly because he did not provide a declaration from his defense counsel and had signed a plea form acknowledging potential deportation. The court also noted that there was no alternative, immigration-neutral plea available to Padron.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Padron demonstrated error affecting his ability to understand the immigration consequences of his plea. The court found that Padron’s defense counsel did not adequately advise him of the mandatory immigration consequences, and Padron’s mental health challenges further impaired his understanding. The court also determined that Padron established a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea had he understood the consequences, given his strong ties to the United States and the severe impact on his asylum status.The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of Padron’s motion and remanded the case with instructions to vacate Padron’s conviction and permit him to withdraw his plea and enter a different plea. View "People v. Padron" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Christian L. Johnson sued his employer, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. During the litigation, Caltrans attorney Paul Brown sent an email to Johnson’s supervisor, Nicolas Duncan, which Duncan then shared with Johnson. Johnson forwarded the email to his attorney, John Shepardson, who further disseminated it to several experts and individuals. Caltrans sought a protective order, claiming the email was covered by attorney-client privilege. The trial court granted the order and later disqualified Shepardson and three experts for non-compliance with the order.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County issued the protective order, finding the email privileged. Johnson and Shepardson were ordered to destroy all copies and cease further dissemination. Caltrans later filed a motion to enforce the order and subsequently a motion to disqualify Shepardson and the experts, arguing continued non-compliance and misuse of the privileged email. The trial court granted the disqualification, citing Shepardson’s breach of ethical duties and the potential prejudice to Caltrans.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the Brown email was protected by attorney-client privilege. The court found no merit in Johnson’s arguments that the privilege was waived or that the crime-fraud exception applied. The court also upheld the disqualification of Shepardson and the experts, concluding that Shepardson’s actions violated ethical obligations and posed a risk of unfair advantage and harm to the integrity of the judicial process. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust in the administration of justice. View "Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

An imposter posing as investment advisor Daniel Corey Payne of Lifetime Financial, Inc. stole over $300,000 from Mark Frank Harding. Prior to this, Lifetime had received several inquiries about a potential imposter posing as Payne but did not post a warning or take significant action. Harding sued Lifetime and others for negligence, arguing that as registered investment advisors, they had a duty to post a warning about the imposter on their website and report the complaints to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Harding claimed that had they done so, he would not have transferred funds to the imposter.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that they owed no duty to Harding. The court noted that Harding was not a client of the defendants and that there was no fiduciary relationship between them. The court also found that there was no statutory or case authority imposing a duty on the defendants to warn nonclients about an imposter.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the defendants did not owe a duty to Harding to report the imposter on their website or to FINRA. The court found that FINRA Rule 4530 did not apply because the defendants were not the subject of any written customer complaint involving allegations of theft or misappropriation of funds. The court also found that FINRA Rule 2210 did not impose an affirmative duty to warn the general public about a third-party impersonator. The court concluded that the defendants did not owe a duty to Harding and affirmed the summary judgment. View "Harding v. Lifetime Financial, Inc." on Justia Law