Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

In May 2020, Daniel Samaniego was charged with gross sexual imposition, a class AA felony. During his trial in May 2021, a detective testified about attempting to interview Samaniego, leading to an objection from Samaniego’s counsel, which was sustained. The jury found Samaniego guilty. Post-trial, a juror indicated that the jury discussed Samaniego’s decision not to testify. Samaniego’s counsel did not move for a new trial based on this potential jury misconduct.Samaniego appealed the criminal judgment in September 2021, arguing insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting the prosecutorial misconduct claim was not preserved for appeal. In May 2023, Samaniego filed for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not preserving the prosecutorial misconduct issue and not moving for a new trial based on jury misconduct. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the application in February 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Samaniego did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different but for his counsel’s alleged errors. The court found no prosecutorial misconduct in the detective’s testimony and noted that the jury’s discussion about Samaniego not testifying did not constitute juror misconduct under the law. The court concluded that Samaniego’s trial counsel’s actions did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that Samaniego was not prejudiced by these actions. View "Samaniego v. State" on Justia Law

GMG Insurance Agency filed a legal malpractice claim against Margolis Edelstein, alleging professional negligence in Margolis's representation of GMG in a non-compete action brought by Lyons Insurance Agency in the Court of Chancery. GMG claimed that Margolis's inadequate handling of discovery and failure to develop a proper factual record led to GMG's unfavorable position in the litigation. GMG eventually settled the case for $1.2 million after a key employee, Howard Wilson, recanted his prior testimony in an affidavit that was detrimental to GMG's defense.The Superior Court of Delaware granted summary judgment in favor of Margolis Edelstein, finding that Margolis's representation did not fall below the applicable standard of care. The court also concluded that Wilson's affidavit was a superseding cause that broke the causal chain linking Margolis's alleged negligence to GMG's claimed damages. GMG appealed this decision.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the Superior Court erred in its judgment. The Supreme Court held that there were material disputed facts regarding whether Margolis deviated from the requisite standard of care. The court also found that the Superior Court failed to address GMG's contention that, but for Margolis's alleged negligence, GMG would have prevailed on all claims in the Court of Chancery litigation. Additionally, the Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court erred in determining that Wilson's affidavit was a superseding cause as a matter of law.The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the issues of negligence and causation should be resolved by a jury. View "GMG Insurance Agency v. Edelstein" on Justia Law

In September 2019, the appellant was involved in a shooting that resulted in the death of Cameron Johnson. The appellant was romantically involved with Andrea Stanek, who had an on-again, off-again relationship with Johnson. On the night of the incident, after a walk to resolve tensions, the appellant shot Johnson in the chest. The appellant was charged with malice murder, two counts of felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm-related offenses. He pleaded guilty to malice murder in October 2021 and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years. The remaining charges were dismissed.The Glynn County Superior Court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced the appellant accordingly. The appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that his counsel failed to inform him about the 30-year parole eligibility requirement. The trial court denied this motion in July 2022, finding no deficiency in counsel’s performance. The appellant's subsequent motion to vacate the order was granted for procedural reasons, allowing him to file a timely appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that the appellant's counsel had adequately informed him about the parole consequences of his plea. The court noted that the trial court was entitled to credit the testimony of the appellant’s counsel over the appellant’s claims. The Supreme Court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient. View "GOODWIN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

A criminal defendant, convicted of aggravated manslaughter and sentenced to thirty years in prison, twice instructed his attorney to file a plenary appeal. However, his intake appellate counsel designated the appeal for the expedited sentence-review track (ESOA). The ESOA panel did not transfer the case to the plenary calendar and affirmed the sentence. The defendant's subsequent post-conviction relief applications in state court, which included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, were unsuccessful.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the defendant's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which included claims related to the ESOA designation. The court also denied his Rule 60(b) motion, which specifically challenged the intake appellate counsel's decision to place the appeal on the ESOA calendar.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Rule 60(b) motion was not a second or successive habeas application because it was filed within 28 days of the underlying judgment. However, the court found that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally defaulted because it was not exhausted in state court and he could not show the requisite prejudice to overcome the default. The court applied the Strickland standard for prejudice, requiring a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel's errors, rather than the Flores-Ortega standard, which applies when the entirety of direct appellate review is rendered unavailable. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition and the Rule 60(b) motion. View "Ross v. Administrator East Jersey State Prison" on Justia Law

Federal agents received a tip about methamphetamine being stored at a house in El Paso, Texas. An informant arranged a controlled buy with Carla Dominguez, who confirmed she had methamphetamine for sale. Dominguez and her husband, Samuel Crittenden, were observed by agents; Crittenden retrieved a bag from the house and handed it to Dominguez, who was later intercepted by police with ten pounds of methamphetamine. Crittenden admitted to storing items at the house and giving a bag to Dominguez, claiming he thought it contained marijuana. Additional drugs were found in the attic of the house.Crittenden and Dominguez were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine and marijuana. The government raised a potential conflict of interest with Crittenden’s attorney, Leonard Morales, who also represented another individual involved in drug activities. The district court held a Garcia hearing, where Crittenden waived his right to conflict-free counsel. The court accepted the waiver, and the trial proceeded. Crittenden was convicted on all counts, but the district court later granted a new trial due to insufficient evidence. The Fifth Circuit reinstated the conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and remanded for sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Crittenden’s appeal, where he argued that the district court erred in accepting his waiver of conflict-free counsel and in denying a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple possession. The Fifth Circuit found that Crittenden’s waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that the district court did not err in accepting it. The court also held that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated intent to distribute, making a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple possession inappropriate. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Crittenden" on Justia Law

Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc. ("Holsum") contracted with Peerless Food Equipment ("Peerless") to manufacture a machine for sandwiching cookies and with Compass Industrial Group, LLC ("Compass") for a tray-loader machine. The machines malfunctioned, leading Holsum to sue both companies for breach of contract and negligence. The jury found in favor of Holsum against Compass but ruled in favor of Peerless. Peerless then sought attorney fees from Holsum, citing a fee-shifting provision in their contract and a Puerto Rico court rule.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied Peerless's motion for attorney fees. The court found that the fee-shifting provision was not clearly incorporated into the contract through a hyperlink and that Holsum did not act obstinately or frivolously in bringing its claims against Peerless. Peerless appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the contract did not clearly communicate the incorporation of the fee-shifting provision via the hyperlink. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that Holsum's claims were not frivolous and that Holsum did not act obstinately in refusing to settle before trial. The appellate court emphasized that exercising the right to a jury trial in good faith does not constitute obstinacy. View "Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. ITW Food Equipment Group LLC" on Justia Law

Craig Reichel, a businessperson from Rochester, Minnesota, and his companies, including Reichel Foods, Inc., filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the law firm Wendland Utz, LTD, and its former lawyer, Jerrie Hayes. Reichel alleged that despite an ultimately favorable outcome in prior litigation, the law firm’s negligence caused him to incur substantial attorney fees and costs. The underlying litigation involved a lawsuit filed by Craig’s brother, Bryan Reichel, claiming an equity interest in one of Craig’s companies. The district court issued several adverse rulings against Craig and his companies, leading to significant legal expenses. Eventually, the bankruptcy court confirmed Craig’s sole ownership of the companies, and the district court granted summary judgment in Craig’s favor.The Olmsted County District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wendland Utz, dismissing Reichel Foods’ professional negligence claim on the grounds that Reichel Foods could not demonstrate that, but for the law firm’s conduct, it would have been successful in the underlying litigation. The district court did not address Reichel Foods’ other claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, nor did it resolve the claims brought by Craig Reichel and his other companies.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to decide claims still pending in the district court. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ rulings on those claims. Regarding the professional negligence claim of Reichel Foods, the Supreme Court held that a successful outcome in the underlying litigation does not categorically bar a legal malpractice claim. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming summary judgment on Reichel Foods’ professional negligence claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Reichel vs. Wendland Utz, LTD" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was involved in an altercation in Waikiki that resulted in the death of another individual. The defendant, who claimed to have poor vision, was called to the scene by a friend who was being harassed by two men. The situation escalated into a physical fight, during which the defendant stabbed one of the men, who later died from his injuries. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The defendant appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing prosecutorial misconduct and instructional errors. The ICA affirmed the conviction, concluding that the prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury instructions were appropriate.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i reviewed the case on certiorari. The court found that the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) committed prosecutorial misconduct by characterizing the defendant as a liar and an "enforcer" during closing arguments, which denied the defendant a fair trial. The court also noted that the DPA improperly inserted personal opinions and new evidence regarding the defendant's eyesight. The court held that this misconduct was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and vacated the ICA's judgment, as well as the Circuit Court's judgment of conviction and sentence. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "State v. Cardona" on Justia Law

On the evening of February 11, 2018, Deizmond C. Peters and three accomplices allegedly committed a series of crimes at a Wichita home, resulting in the death of Donte Devore. The group, armed with handguns, entered the home after assaulting Devore on the porch. During an altercation inside, Devore was shot and killed. Peters was later charged with first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, criminal possession of a weapon, and four counts of aggravated assault.The Sedgwick District Court held a jury trial where Peters was convicted on all charges. Peters filed a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the court denied. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 618 months plus an additional 332 months. Peters appealed his convictions, raising several claims of trial and sentencing errors.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found merit in two of Peters' arguments. First, the court agreed that the evidence did not support his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon due to an error in the stipulation used to prove this charge. Second, the court noted that the sentencing journal entry of judgment improperly omitted Peters' jail credit award of 1,437 days. The court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no error in the jury selection process, prosecutorial conduct, jury instructions, or the cumulative error doctrine. The court also upheld the method of determining Peters' criminal history under the Kansas Criminal Sentencing Guidelines, rejecting his constitutional challenge.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with directions to vacate Peters' sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, resentence him without the reversed conviction, and issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the sentencing journal entry to include the jail credit award. View "State v. Peters" on Justia Law

Joan Stormo and her siblings hired attorney Peter Clark for a real estate transaction, but Clark's actions caused the deal to fall through. Stormo sued Clark for malpractice and won. Clark's insurer, State National Insurance Company, denied coverage based on a prior-knowledge exclusion and Clark's delay in reporting the lawsuit. Stormo, as Clark's assignee, then sued State National for breach of contract and unfair claim-settlement practices.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that factual questions necessitated a trial on the breach-of-contract claim but granted summary judgment to State National on the unfair claim-settlement practices claim. The jury found for Stormo on the breach-of-contract claim, awarding over $1 million in damages. However, the district court granted State National's motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling that Clark's late notice of the claim voided coverage under the policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that under Massachusetts law, a claims-made policy like Clark's does not require the insurer to show prejudice from late notice to deny coverage. Since Clark failed to provide timely notice, State National had no duty to indemnify or defend him. Consequently, Stormo's claims for breach of contract and unfair claim-settlement practices failed. View "Stormo v. State National Insurance Co." on Justia Law