Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

In 2004, Jason Mashaney was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child, involving his then-five-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to 442 months in prison. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. In 2008, Mashaney filed a motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, which led to a reversal and remand for a full evidentiary hearing. The district court found substantial prejudice from ineffective representation, vacated the 2004 convictions, and scheduled a new trial. Subsequently, Mashaney entered an Alford plea to amended charges of attempted aggravated battery and aggravated endangerment of a child, resulting in a 72-month sentence and his release for time served.The Sedgwick District Court awarded Mashaney nearly $414,595 in damages for wrongful conviction and imprisonment under K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004. The court concluded that the original charges were "effectively dismissed" when the State amended them to nonsexual charges involving the same victim. The district court found that Mashaney met the statutory elements for compensation, including that his judgment of conviction was vacated and the charges were dismissed. The court calculated the damages based on the duration of wrongful imprisonment and reduced the award by the amount received from a legal malpractice settlement.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the phrase "the charges were dismissed" in K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(B) means both terminating the criminal accusation and relieving the defendant of criminal liability. The court found that the original charges against Mashaney were not dismissed but amended, and he incurred criminal liability for the amended charges. Therefore, Mashaney did not meet the statutory requirement that the charges were dismissed, and his claim for wrongful conviction and imprisonment failed. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Mashaney" on Justia Law

Christopher Schocker was convicted of aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer. The incident occurred when Officer Blake Swanson, a Game, Fish, and Parks conservation officer, received a tip about a poached deer and went to investigate. At the scene, Schocker, his mother Doris, and two other individuals were present. During the encounter, Schocker picked up a knife and moved towards Officer Swanson, who then arrested him. Schocker claimed he intended to cut a tag off the deer, not assault the officer.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Roberts County, South Dakota, found Schocker guilty. Schocker appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. His attorney, Robert Doody, did not interview key witnesses or adequately prepare for trial. The court-appointed new counsel for Schocker, who then filed for habeas corpus relief. The habeas court found that Doody’s performance was deficient and prejudicial, as he failed to interview witnesses who could have supported Schocker’s defense.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the habeas court’s decision, agreeing that Doody’s failure to interview witnesses, particularly Jeffry Hopkins, who could testify that Schocker intended to cut the tag off the deer, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. This failure was deemed prejudicial because it deprived Schocker of a fair trial. The court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if the jury had heard Hopkins’s testimony. View "Schocker v. Fluke" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to sell and possession of cocaine after police recovered drugs and paraphernalia during a search of an apartment where he and others were arrested. Defense counsel sought to suppress the seized items, arguing the warrant was inaccurate and unreliable but did not claim the warrant was executed without notice, violating CPL 690.50 (1). Defendant argued on appeal that this omission constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the case and rejected the ineffective assistance claim, noting that the record did not conclusively show a knock-and-announce violation. The court found that the defendant's argument was speculative and unsupported by the record, which was silent on whether the officers announced themselves before entry. The Appellate Division concluded that the defendant failed to establish a no-knock violation.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that defense counsel's failure to raise the knock-and-announce issue did not constitute ineffective assistance because the argument was not so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense attorney would have failed to assert it. The court noted that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan, which held that a knock-and-announce violation does not require the exclusion of evidence, had not been contradicted by any New York appellate decision. Therefore, the issue was not sufficiently clear to mandate its assertion by defense counsel. The court also found that the defendant's legal sufficiency contention was unpreserved for appellate review and upheld the trial court's admission of evidence regarding an uncharged drug sale. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v Hayward" on Justia Law

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Philadelphia), a Pennsylvania-based insurer, brought claims of malpractice, indemnity, and contribution against Martin O’Leary, Kimberly Forrester, and the Sedgwick LLP Liquidating Trust (Sedgwick Defendants). The Sedgwick Defendants, former employees of the now-bankrupt Sedgwick LLP, had provided legal services to Philadelphia. The claims arose from a Montana class action lawsuit involving Gateway Hospitality, Inc. (Gateway), which Philadelphia had insured. Sedgwick advised Philadelphia to deny coverage to Gateway, leading to a settlement where Gateway paid approximately four million dollars to class members.The Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula County granted the Sedgwick Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The court found that Philadelphia failed to establish that the Sedgwick Defendants had sufficient contacts with Montana to warrant jurisdiction. Philadelphia appealed this decision, arguing that the Sedgwick Defendants' actions related to the Montana lawsuit should subject them to Montana's jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the Sedgwick Defendants did not have sufficient contacts with Montana to establish personal jurisdiction. The Sedgwick Defendants' actions, including providing legal advice and sending a denial letter from California to Ohio, did not constitute transacting business or committing a tort in Montana. The court concluded that the Sedgwick Defendants' conduct did not create a substantial connection with Montana, and thus, the exercise of personal jurisdiction was not appropriate. View "Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v O'Leary" on Justia Law

An attorney, Brian Steel, was found in contempt of court for refusing to disclose how he learned about an ex parte hearing involving a witness, the witness's counsel, and prosecutors in a case where Steel represented a defendant. The trial judge, Judge Glanville, repeatedly asked Steel to reveal his source, but Steel claimed the information was protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Judge Glanville held Steel in contempt and ordered him into custody, although Steel was later allowed to return to the courtroom.The Fulton County Superior Court initially found Steel in contempt and ordered him to be taken into custody. Steel argued that the information was privileged and that due process required Judge Glanville to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings. Despite these arguments, Judge Glanville sentenced Steel to 20 days in jail to be served on weekends and denied him a supersedeas bond.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that due process required Judge Glanville to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings. The court held that because the punishment was delayed and the alleged disobedience was directed toward the judge, a different judge should have presided over the contempt hearing. The court reversed the judgment of contempt imposed by the trial court. View "STEEL v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who operate restaurants under franchise agreements, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition based on advice from their legal counsel. This led to the franchisor terminating the franchise agreements. The plaintiffs then sued their lawyers and law firms for legal malpractice and breach of written contracts for legal services, alleging that the lawyers' advice constituted malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss both claims, arguing they were barred by a four-year statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-25.The trial court dismissed the legal-malpractice claims but denied the motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract claims. Later, it granted summary judgment for a subset of defendants, ruling that the breach-of-contract claims were also barred by the four-year statute of limitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the legal-malpractice claims and concluded that the breach-of-contract claims were duplicative and should be dismissed as well.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine which statute of limitation applies to breach-of-contract-for-legal-services claims and whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing these claims as duplicative. The Supreme Court concluded that such claims could be governed by either a six-year statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-24 or a four-year statute under OCGA § 9-3-25, depending on whether the breach arose directly from a written contract. The Court also held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the breach-of-contract claims as duplicative without applying the proper motion-to-dismiss standard.The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, emphasizing that plaintiffs can pursue alternative theories of relief based on the same conduct. View "TITSHAW v. GEER" on Justia Law

Louis Mercado was charged with three counts of capital sexual battery in Florida. During his trial, the court granted judgments of acquittal on two counts and declared a mistrial on the third count due to prosecutorial error. The trial court then barred a retrial, citing the Double Jeopardy Clause. The State appealed this decision, but Mercado's attorney, mistakenly believing he had withdrawn from the case, failed to file a response brief. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, leading to Mercado's retrial, conviction, and life sentence.The Fifth District Court of Appeal summarily denied Mercado's state habeas petition, in which he argued ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to file a response brief. Mercado contended that this failure should be presumed prejudicial under United States v. Cronic, rather than requiring proof of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The appellate court's decision was based on the reasoning that the failure to file a brief did not constitute a complete denial of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Mercado's federal habeas petition. The court held that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has never applied the Cronic presumption of prejudice to a situation where counsel failed to file an appellee's brief. Therefore, the state court's requirement for Mercado to prove actual prejudice under Strickland was deemed reasonable. View "Mercado v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

In 2010, the defendant was prosecuted for multiple counts of attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and other charges. He pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder and admitted to several enhancements, resulting in a 30-year prison sentence. In 2022, he filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6, which the trial court found made a prima facie case for an evidentiary hearing. The defendant then sought discovery of peace officer personnel records, which the trial court partially granted after an in-camera review.The Monterey County Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the petition. The defendant appealed, requesting the appellate court to review the trial court's application of Pitchess standards to the discovery motion. The appellate court requested supplemental briefing on whether the trial court's review should also encompass Brady principles, which require the disclosure of exculpatory evidence.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, determined that a petitioner may obtain disclosure of peace officer personnel information under Brady principles through Pitchess procedures in advance of a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing. The court found that the trial court did not clearly consider Brady principles when ruling on the discovery motion. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally reversed the trial court's order denying the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings to ensure compliance with Brady requirements. If the trial court finds additional discoverable information, it must allow the defendant to demonstrate prejudice and potentially order a new evidentiary hearing. View "People v. Nuno" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants marketed fraudulent franchise opportunities to foreign nationals seeking to invest in the United States to obtain residency visas. The complaint included claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state-law claims for fraud, breach of contract, and malpractice. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants misrepresented the nature of the investment opportunities, leading the plaintiffs to believe they were purchasing franchises that would qualify them for E-2 or EB-5 visas. Instead, they received licenses that did not meet visa requirements, resulting in financial losses and visa application issues.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege a cognizable enterprise under RICO and failed to meet the heightened pleading standards for fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court also denied the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, citing undue delay and the plaintiffs' failure to provide a proposed amended complaint or additional facts that would cure the deficiencies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to plead a RICO enterprise, as the complaint did not provide sufficient factual detail to support the existence of an association-in-fact enterprise. The court also upheld the dismissal of the fraud and fraudulent inducement claims, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint and the dismissal of claims against certain defendants for failure to effect timely service of process. View "Crosswell v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In 2009, a surgeon performed a shoulder replacement surgery on a patient, during which the patient suffered a fracture and subsequent nerve injury, resulting in permanent radial nerve palsy. The patient sued the surgeon and associated medical entities for professional negligence, claiming vicarious liability. The case went to trial twice; the first trial resulted in a verdict for the defendants, but the court granted a new trial due to juror misconduct. The second trial resulted in a verdict for the patient, awarding significant damages, which the court reduced according to statutory caps.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County oversaw the trials. After the second trial, the court reduced the pain and suffering damages to $350,000 pursuant to NRS 41A.035, awarded attorney fees, and capped expert witness costs. The defendants moved for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct, which the court denied. Both parties appealed various aspects of the court's decisions, including the application of the damages cap, the res ipsa loquitur instruction, and the award of attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a res ipsa loquitur instruction despite expert testimony, as the relevant statutory amendments did not apply retroactively. The court affirmed the reduction of pain and suffering damages to $350,000, applying the statutory cap to both the surgeon and the medical entities. The court also upheld the denial of a new trial based on juror misconduct, finding no intentional concealment or prejudice.Regarding attorney fees, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award but modified it to comply with NRS 7.095, capping the total recoverable amount. The court found no conflict between NRCP 68 and NRS 18.005 but remanded the case for further proceedings on expert witness fees, requiring a more detailed application of the Frazier factors. The judgment and order denying a new trial were affirmed, the attorney fees award was affirmed as modified, and the order retaxing costs was reversed in part. View "NEVINS VS. MARTYN" on Justia Law