Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Mac Naughton, a New Jersey attorney, represented Harmelech in a lawsuit filed by RMG until Harmelech failed to pay his legal fees. Mac Naughton later purchased from RMG the rights to the unpaid portion of a settlement judgment and filed multiple actions against Harmelech, seeking to collect the Judgment. He sought to set aside Harmelech’s conveyance of his Highland Park home to his son. Harmelech moved to disqualify Mac Naughton under New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a): A lawyer who has represented a client “shall not thereafter represent another client in … a substantially related matter in which that client’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client.” Judge Holderman barred Mac Naughton from acting as counsel in efforts to collect the RMG Judgment. Mac Naughton continued prosecuting the matter and filed similar actions before different judges. The Highland Park action was dismissed as a sanction for Mac Naughton’s defiance of the Order. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals of four other cases.Mac Naughton then sued Harmelech, seeking to set aside a purportedly fraudulent stock transfer to collect the RMG Judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the suit's dismissal. This lawsuit was another attempt to circumvent the Holderman Order. Mac Naughton again argued that he did not violate Rule 1.9(a); he expects a New Jersey proceeding to vindicate him. But this dismissal was based on the Holderman Order, not Rule 1.9(a). Whether or not Mac Naughton violated his ethical duties as a New Jersey lawyer, he has a duty to comply with orders issued by Seventh Circuit courts. The appeal was frivolous; sanctions are warranted. View "Mac Naughton v. Asher Ventures, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against Steven Johnson and his legal entities (collectively, Appellants) on Johnson's legal malpractice claims against Danielle M. Mathey and Mathey Law Office, P.C. (collectively, Appellees), holding that Appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Appellants sued Appellees alleging legal malpractice regarding Mathey's representation of Johnson on various matters. Because Appellants did not designate an expert witness or present any competent evidence establishing the legal elements of their legal malpractice claims the district court granted summary judgment for Appeellees, finding that Appellants failed to establish through expert testimony or other competent evidence a genuine issue of material fact on the elements of their claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees. View "Johnson v. Mathey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court consolidated two appeals related to the circuit court's summary judgment rulings in the professional negligence lawsuit brought by Michael and Madelynn Hoven against Banner Associates, Inc. and remanded for the circuit court to dismiss the suit, holding that it was untimely pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-13(1).The Hovens sued Banner for professional negligence. Banner moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Hovens' claims were barred by the relevant statute of limitations and the statute of repose. The circuit court granted summary judgment in part, holding (1) there were material issues of fact in dispute as to whether the statute of limitations had expired; and (2) there were material issues of fact in dispute on the Hovens' claims of fraudulent concealment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that S.D. Codified Laws 15-2A-3 was the only limitation period applicable to the Hovens' lawsuit and that S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-13 did not apply; (2) it was undisputed that the Hovens' lawsuit was not commenced within six years from the date their cause of action accrued; and (3) therefore, the circuit court is directed on remand to dismiss the Hovens' negligence suit against Banner as untimely. View "Hoven v. Banner Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court, certified as final under Nev. R. Civ. P. 54(b), partially dismissing a medical malpractice action for failure to meet the affidavit-of-merit requirement set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 41A.071 as to three of the named defendants, holding that there was no error.Appellant, as special administrator of the estate of Sharon Monk, sued University Medical Center and Sharon's other healthcare providers, including the three physicians who were the respondents to this appeal, alleging negligence. Monk supported the complaint with a declaration from Nurse Jamescia Hambrick. The district court granted Respondents' motion to dismiss on the grounds that Nurse Hambrick lacked the qualifications necessary to establish Nev. Rev. Stat. 41A.071 as to Respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims against Respondents was not exempted from section 41A.071's affidavit-of-merit requirement. View "Monk v. Ching" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeal concluding that the appellate court, exercising its authority to issue an interlocutory writ of certiorari, could not immediately review a trial court's ruling denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss a medical malpractice action brought them on the basis that Respondent's proposed expert did not meet the requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act, Fla. Stat. 766, holding that there was no error.Respondent sued Petitioners for medical malpractice and included within her presuit notices the affidavit of Dr. James DeStephens. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that DeStephens did not satisfy the statutory requisites. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, after which Petitioners filed a certiorari petition. The court of appeal dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that Respondent had not established irreparable harm. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding that it was Petitioners' failure to show that the trial court had departed from the essential requirements of the law, not their failure to demonstrate irreparable harm, that kept them from establishing their entitlement to relief. View "University of Fla. Bd. of Trustees v. Carmody" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the superior court granting Defendant's motion to compel production of a complete, unreacted copy of a settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and the former codefendants who settled Plaintiffs' claims, holding that the trial justice abused her discretion in granting Defendant's motion.In granting Defendant's motion to compel production, the trial justice concluded that the amount paid in accordance with the settlement agreement was not discoverable "pursuant to Rhode Island and federal law." When Plaintiffs failed to comply with the order the superior court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below and remanded the case, holding that the trial justice abused her discretion in granting Defendant's motion to compel production of a complete, unreacted copy of the settlement agreement. View "Noonan v. Sambandam" on Justia Law

The attorney appointed to represent Defendant moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Defendant did not file a response.The Fifth Circuit granted the motion to withdraw. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The court wrote that consistent with Crawley, it holds that Defendant’s restitution order does not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal because he is liable for the same restitution amount regardless of the ultimate recipients. View "USA v. Fults" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Roger Williams Medical Center (RWMC) in this case alleging medical malpractice and negligent credentialing claims, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the motion justice erred in granting RWMC's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff could not prove his negligent credentialing and medical malpractice claims without expert testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) expert testimony was required to prove Plaintiff's apparent agency claim against RWMC, and because Plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony, RWMC could not be held liable under an agency theory; and (2) Plaintiff's inability to present expert testimony establishing the standard of care applicable to RWMC in credentialing its doctors was fatal to Plaintiff's negligent credentialing claim. View "Dockray v. Roger Williams Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition in this original jurisdiction case prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing its order denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss the amended complaint brought by Respondents, Angela and Denny Seth Lester, holding that the complaint failed to follow the pre-suit notice requirements set forth in the Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code 55-7B-1, et seq.Respondents sued Petitioner-hospital and other entities asserting that each negligently mishandled fetal remains following Angela's treatment at the hospital for a stillbirth. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that a stillborn fetus cannot be a "patient" under the MPLA, and therefore, Respondents were not required to comply with the MPLA's pre-suit notice requirements. View "State ex rel. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. v. Honorable Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) that would effectively dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed against it by Mary Jane McComas, administratrix of the estate of Deanna McDonald, holding that DCR failed to establish that it was entitled to the writ.McComas, as administratrix of McDonald's estate, sued DCR alleging state law and common law claims and causes of action, including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death. DCR filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint asserted claims sounding in medical professional liability under the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) that could not be brought against DCR. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, after which DCR filed its writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ, holding that the MPLA does not apply to DCR, and therefore, the circuit court did not commit clear error as a matter of law in declining to dismiss the amended complaint. View "State ex rel. W. Va. Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Honorable Ferguson" on Justia Law