Justia Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinion Summaries

Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Christian Coomer was charged with patterns of behavior regarding his use of campaign funds and his dealings with a legal client that allegedly undermined public confidence. The Hearing Panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) found that he indeed committed those acts, that he did so in bad faith, that those acts violated the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, and that the violations warranted his removal. The Georgia Supreme Court found that enough of the Hearing Panel’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence that, notwithstanding alternative ways that the evidence could have been viewed, the Court deferred to the Hearing Panel’s findings regarding Judge Coomer’s actions and the bad faith in which the Hearing Panel found those actions to have been taken. The Court concluded the appropriate sanction was to remove Judge Coomer from the bench. View "Inquiry concerning Judge Christian Coomer" on Justia Law

After several instances of inappropriate behavior and twice failing to show up for a client’s sentencing hearing, mostly due to a problem with substance abuse, attorney Plaintiff was referred by a presiding judge to a three-judge disciplinary panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Following an investigation and hearing, the panel sanctioned Plaintiff by suspending him from practicing before that court for 12 months, with the option to reapply upon proof of sobriety during the period of suspension. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that a three-judge panel could not sanction him because the rules say only that “[a] presiding judge” may take disciplinary action. He also says the 12-month suspension is excessive.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court explained that the district court did try a less severe option. An informal panel of judges privately reprimanded him in June 2020. That lesser sanction did not work. The court was thus justified in imposing a harsher sanction like the suspension. Moreover, the sanction here is appropriately tailored to Plaintiff’s unique situation: his inability to practice law stemmed from his alcohol abuse, so the court ordered him not to practice until he is able to demonstrate sustained sobriety for one year. Further, the court wrote that the district court here considered that a lesser, non-suspension sanction had not deterred Plaintiff from reverting to his old ways. The panel also considered that Plaintiff’s conduct had persisted for some time and that he was not remorseful for his conduct. View "In re Sealed Appellant" on Justia Law

Appellant Matthew Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and separately moved to recuse the district judge to whom that petition was assigned. On appeal, The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability, explaining that each of his arguments had already been considered and rejected by binding precedent. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to recuse.   The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court explained that Defendant petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel opinion stands for the proposition that a district court has the power to shorten the one-year statute of limitations. The court explained that the opinion stands for no such thing. It holds only that the district court’s case-management order is not a ground for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a). Especially probative for that holding is the fact that the district court ultimately granted Johnson the extension he sought. The court explained that its conclusion that the district court was not required to recuse says nothing about the hypothetical issue of whether a district court would commit legal error if it did order a post-conviction habeas petitioner to file his petition before the deadline provided by the statute of limitations. View "Johnson v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

A Special Tribunal was convened to impose discipline on former Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Coats. The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline recommended approval of an Amended Stipulation for Public Censure. The censure stems from a 2018 allegation against Mindy Masias, the Chief of Staff and second in command of the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO), for misconduct while she was employed by the SCAO. She resigned her position, but was still under consideration for a post-resignation services contract with the Court, valued at $2.6 to $2.7 million. After an anonymous letter raised significant allegations of wrongdoing by Masias, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) opened an investigation. Undisputed evidence revealed that the Judicial Department entered into this contract with Masias before the anonymous letter was received, and Justice Coats asserted he had no knowledge of the execution of Masias’ contract at that time. Months after execution of the contract and receipt of the letter, Justice Coats learned Masias had surreptitiously recorded a conversation with former Chief Justice Rice concerning the reasons Masias was not elevated to become the State Court Administrator. Had Justice Coats exercised due diligence by obtaining and reviewing the Masias separation agreement, he could have learned about the surreptitious recording prior to execution of the services contract. The Court ultimately withdrew from the services contract. Disciplinary proceedings were started against Justice Coats for failing to “perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently” as required by the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission recommended, and the Special Tribunal adopted the recommendation that Justice Coats be publicly censured. View "Colorado v. Coats" on Justia Law

Relator John Hendrix and five public-agency exemplar plaintiffs claim that J-M Manufacturing Co. (“J-M”) violated the federal and various state False Claims Acts (“FCAs”) by representing that its polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) pipes were compliant with industry standards. In Phase One of a bifurcated trial, a jury found that J-M knowingly made false claims that were material to the public agencies’ decisions to purchase J-M pipe. After the jury was unable to reach a verdict in Phase Two, the district court granted J-M judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on actual damages and awarded one statutory penalty for each project involved in plaintiffs’ claims.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that sufficient evidence of falsity, materiality, and scienter supported the Phase One verdict. A reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiffs received some pipe not meeting industry standards. Further, the jury reasonably found that plaintiffs would not have purchased or installed J-M pipe had they been told the truth that J-M knew it had stopped producing pipes through processes materially similar to those used at the time of compliance testing and also knew that a significant amount of the pipe later produced did not meet industry standards. Plaintiffs’ failure to prove that any individual stick of pipe that they received was non-compliant did not mean that they failed to establish scienter. The panel held that the district court properly awarded JM judgment as a matter of law on actual damages under the federal False Claims Act. Plaintiffs did not establish actual damages by showing that they would not have bought the pipe had they known the truth. View "JOHN HENDRIX, ET AL V. J-M MANUFACTURING CO., INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

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