Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Defendants, an attorney and a law firm, structured a tax-deferred exchange for Plaintiffs, a husband and wife and the cattle ranch they owned. It was later determined that the exchange did not qualify for deferred tax treatment under 26 U.S.C. 1031, resulting in significant tax liability for Plaintiffs. Defendants filed an action against Defendants for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims on grounds that Plaintiffs' claims were time barred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs' tort claims were timely filed, and the issue of whether Plaintiffs' timely filed their misrepresentation claim was a question of material fact to be resolved by a jury; (2) Plaintiffs properly stated a claim for breach of contract and the claim was not time barred; and (3) the district court erred in granting Defendants a protection order to prevent discovery of alleged work product and attorney-client communications, as further analysis and fact finding were necessary to determine which documents were discoverable and which qualified for work product or attorney-client protection. Remanded.View "Draggin' Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Addink" on Justia Law

Respondent Leslie Anne Whittington appealed an Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) order that concluded she committed several acts of unprofessional conduct and sanctioning her to a five-year license suspension. Respondent worked as a Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) from October 2006 until 2010. In its Amended Specification of Charges, the State alleged that respondent committed a host of specified acts that amounted to unprofessional conduct. In particular, the State alleged that respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by failing to keep the home’s supplies adequately stocked; failing to keep the home adequately staffed; creating an erratic and hostile environment for staff and residents, possibly due to mental or psychological instability; allowing regulatory deficiencies to occur and responding poorly to two routine regulatory by the Vermont Division of Licensing and Protection; failing to ensure that residents’ records were properly kept; improperly interfering with nurses’ delivery of medication to residents and other nursing duties or medical decisions; falsely representing that she was a licensed nursing assistant and was close to earning a nursing degree; and improperly physically removing the ombudsman responsible for the home from the premises. Upon review of the OPR record, the Supreme Court reversed the Administrative Law Officer’s determinations that respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by questioning a doctor’s withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and on account of the Division of Licensing and Protection survey deficiencies, but affirmed the ALO’s other findings of unprofessional conduct. The case was remanded to the trial court for remand to the ALO for redetermination of the applicable sanction.View "Whittington v. Office of Professional Regulation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the company that marketed the anti-obesity drug combination known as Fen-Phen. Plaintiffs claims were transferred from Kentucky to a similar action pending in Alabama, where Plaintiffs were represented by Attorneys. After Plaintiffs' claims were settled, Plaintiffs brought this action against Attorneys, claiming that Attorneys wrongfully withheld from each Plaintiff a substantial portion of the settlement award. The circuit court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiffs' complaint was untimely filed under the applicable statute of limitations. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the court of appeals' affirmation of a summary judgment dismissing the claims of all fifty Plaintiffs where the motion before the trial court related to only one particular plaintiff; (2) the court of appeals erred in applying the Alabama statute of limitations rather than Kentucky's, but Appellants' suit was untimely under the applicable Kentucky statutes; (3) Plaintiffs' claims of misrepresentation were subject to the one-year limitation period for professional service malpractice rather than the general five-year limitation period; and (4) the application of the statutes of limitations was not an issue to be resolved by a jury.View "Abel v. Austin" on Justia Law

In connection with a loan, Bayonne provided Nuveen with an audit report by accounting firm, Withum and an opinion letter from Bayonne’s counsel, Lindabury. Later, Bayonne filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Nuveen claimed that the audit report and opinion letter concealed problems. The district court dismissed claims of fraud (Withum), negligent misrepresentation, and malpractice (Lindabury) based on Nuveen’s noncompliance with N.J. Stat. 2A:53A-26 (AOM Statute), which requires an affidavit of merit for certain actions against professionals. The Third Circuit remanded for reconsideration of diversity jurisdiction. On remand, the court found that the action was “related to” Bayonne’s bankruptcy, establishing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1334(b), and again dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed as to jurisdiction and held that the AOM Statute can be applied by a federal court without conflicting with FRCP 8. In 2012 the court certified to the New Jersey Supreme Court questions relating to the “nature of the injury” and “cause of action” elements of the AOM Statute. The state court declined. The Third Circuit then held that the AOM Statute applies and affirmed the dismissal. Although such statutes typically apply only to malpractice claims rooted in negligence resulting from harm to a known property, New Jersey courts go further. View "Nuveen Mun. Trust v. Withumsmith Brown PC" on Justia Law

The Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) terminated a physician's participation in the Medicaid program on the basis of a Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct (BPMC) consent order, in which the physician pleaded no contest to charges of professional misconduct and agreed to probation. Supreme Court annulled the OMIG's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding (1) the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in barring the physician from treating Medicaid patients when the BPMC permitted him to continue to practice; and (2) the OMIG was required to conduct an independent investigation before excluding a physician from Medicaid on the basis of a BPMC consent order. The Court of Appeals affirmed but for another reason, holding (1) the OMIG is authorized to remove a physician from Medicaid in reliance solely on a consent order between the physician and the BMPC, regardless of whether BPMC chooses to suspend the physician's license or OMIG conducts an independent investigation; but (2) because OMIG did not explain why the BPMC consent order caused it to exclude the physician from the Medicaid program, the agency's determination was arbitrary and capricious.View "Koch v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

The Judicial Conduct Board concluded that respondent Judge Ernest Balivet violated Canon 3(B)(8) of the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court ordered review on its own motion. The alleged violation stemmed from the judge's handling of a grandfather's petition for guardianship of his granddaughter, and a subsequent request for termination of the parents' parental rights to the child. Before the hearing before the Judicial Conduct Board, the parties identified three disputed issues : (1)whether respondent failed to rule in a timely manner on the motion to revoke guardianship filed by the child’s parents; (2) whether respondent caused unnecessary delay in failing to schedule a hearing on the grandfather’s motion to terminate the father’s parental rights; and (3) whether respondent failed to respond in a timely manner to the order of remand from the family court. The Board’s sanction order recognized respondent’s responsibility for undue delay and endemic court management issues, but also acknowledged that the choices and actions of others played a significant role in the overall duration of the underlying case. It took into account respondent’s forthrightness in his dealings with the Board, his good intentions toward the parties, the reasonableness of his rulings in the underlying case, and his willingness to accept conditions intended to prevent this type of problem from recurring. The Supreme Court saw no reason to set aside the recommended conditions of respondent's sanctions. The Court did conclude, however, that characterization of respondent’s reprimand as “private,” rather than “public,” despite the conceded public character of the reprimand, was confusing and "cannot stand." Accordingly, the Court amended the sanction to characterize it as a “public reprimand.” In all other respects, the Court affirmed the Board’s sanction for respondent’s violation of Canon 3(B)(8). View "In re Balivet" on Justia Law

Larysa and Alan Asher filed an action individually and as parents and next friends of their minor child, asserting that Dr. Anthony Onuigbo was negligent in delivering their baby. The jury found in favor of Asher and awarded damages. Onuigbo appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred by providing the jury with a causation instruction based upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts rather than an instruction based upon the Restatement (Third) of Torts, as adopted by the Court in Thompson v. Kaszinski, but the error was harmless under the facts and circumstances of this case; and (2) substantial evidence supported submission of two challenged specifications of negligence to the jury. View "Asher v. OB-GYN Specialists, P.C." on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiffs S. Lavon Evans Jr. and his companies S. Lavon Evans Jr. Operating Company, Inc.; S. Lavon Evans Jr. Drilling Ventures, LLC; and E & D Services, Inc. sued Defendants the law firm of Baker & McKenzie, LLP, and one of its partners, Joel Held. The complaint also named as defendants Laredo Energy Holdings, LLC, and its related subsidiaries S. Lavon Evans Operating Texas, LLC, and E & D Drilling Services, LLC. Plaintiffs listed seven causes of action in the complaint: counts one and seven charged the Baker Defendants with legal malpractice and breach of contract; counts two through six charged all the defendants with breach of fiduciary duty, negligent omission and misstatements of material facts, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, tortious interference, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants Laredo Energy Holdings, LLC; S. Lavon Evans Operating Texas, LLC; and E&D Drilling Services filed a cross-claim against the Baker Defendants claiming legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. Evans asserted that in 2007, he lost access to his companies’ two largest assets (two oil drilling rigs) and was sued in Texas by the Baker Defendants on behalf of Reed Cagle (Evans’s business partner), who was acting on behalf of Laredo Energy Holdings, LLC. This triggered a flurry of liens and suits by vendors against Evans and his companies – all because, as Evans claims - he made decisions and entered agreements based on advice and recommendations from the Baker Defendants, who Evans believed to be his lawyers. Evans claimed that his businesses once were worth more than $50 million but now were accountable for debts exceeding $31 million as a result of the conduct by the Baker Defendants. The Mississippi case was tried, and the jury returned a verdict of $103,400,000 in actual damages for Plaintiffs and Cross-Plaintiffs. S. Lavon Evans Jr. was awarded $1 million from defendant Joel Held and $30 million from Baker & McKenzie. S. Lavon Evans Operating Company, Inc., was awarded $1 million from Joel Held and $29 million from Baker & McKenzie. E&D Services, LLC, was awarded $1 million from Joel Held and $19 million from Baker & McKenzie. The jury also assessed Evans, individually, with ten-percent comparative fault. And the trial court reduced the $31 million amount awarded to Evans, individually, by ten percent. The Cross-Plaintiffs were separately awarded $22.4 million from Joel Held and Baker & McKenzie, collectively. A divided jury awarded $75,000 in punitive damages to Plaintiffs and $75,000 in punitive damages to Cross-Plaintiffs. The trial court denied the Baker Defendants’ post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and remittitur. This appeal followed. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed as to the Baker Defendants’ liability. But because the Court found the jury was not properly instructed, it reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on proximate cause and damages.View "Baker & McKenzie, LLP v. Evans, Jr." on Justia Law

Marie Reed appeared before Judge Clark as a plaintiff in "Reed v. East Baton Rouge Sheriff Dept." Specifically, the Formal Charge at issue centers on a colloquy which took place in open court between Judge Clark and Ms. Reed while Ms. Reed’s lawyer was absent and on Judge Clark’s order dismissing Ms. Reed’s suit without prejudice after Ms. Reed was unable to prove her eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis. Ms. Reed had an unusual history of continuing to act many times as her own lawyer, even after she hired counsel. The Supreme Court found that because Judge Clark had signed an order dismissing Ms. Reed’s case without prejudice on April 18, 2011, the brief exchange she had with Ms. Reed on April 19th was of no substantive moment. Judge Clark testified, as the written order confirmed, that she denied the motion to stay and dismissed the case without prejudice the prior day. She took the bench only to announce her ruling on the record (an oral entry which would have been made even if no one associated with the case had been present that morning). The Court was "fully persuaded" that nothing with which the Commission charged Judge Clark warranted the Court’s sanction for judicial misconduct. View "In re Hon. Janice Clark" on Justia Law

In 1983, Birkelbach founded Birkelbach Investment Securities (BIS) and served as its president. Birkelbach was registered as a general securities representative and principal, a municipal securities representative and principal, an options principal, and a financial and operations principal. Birckelbach supervised Murphy’s control of one account held by an unsophisticated investor with assets of $1.7 million, while Murphy generated more than a million dollars in commissions, incurred substantial losses, and engaged in transactions that were not part of the investor-authorized strategy. The investor was unable to understand her statements, many of which included errors that overvalued the account. Lowry similarly mishandled, and Birkelbach supervised, the management of the smaller account of a college student/member of the U.S. military. Birkelbach knew that Murphy had been previously censured, suspended, and fined by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, for trading without authorization and had a history of customer complaints. Birkelbach also had a previous disciplinary history. He had been sanctioned by the Illinois Securities Department and, in 2005, additional supervision of Murphy had been requested by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a self-regulatory organization formed under the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78o-3. Birkelbach did not do so. After FINRA investigated BIS and recommended sanctions, the Securities and Exchange Commission barred Birkelbach from participation in the securities industry for life. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting arguments that the original disciplinary complaint was untimely and the lifetime bar was an excessive punishment.View "Birkelbach v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n" on Justia Law