Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

In December 2014, real party in interest Rito Tejeda was charged with murder. A year later, respondent Superior Court of Orange County assigned Tejeda’s case to Judge Thomas Goethals for all purposes and set the matter for a pre-trial hearing in Judge Goethals’ courtroom. That same day, the State moved to disqualify Judge Goethals pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The declaration represented that Judge Goethals “is prejudiced against the party or the party’s attorney, or the interest of the party or party’s attorney, such that the declarant cannot, or believes that he/she cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judicial officer.” Later that day, the superior court denied the motion to disqualify Judge Goethals. The superior court took judicial notice of facts and events outside the scope of this particular case in supporting its conclusions: (1) the district attorney’s office was engaged in improper “‘blanket papering’” of Judge Goethals in murder cases; and (2) the effect of the blanket challenge was to “substantially disrupt[] the orderly administration of criminal justice in Orange County.” The State appealed the superior court's denial of its motion. The Court of Appeal reversed. "In our view [. . .'Solberg v. Superior Court' 19 Cal.3d 182 (1977)], anticipated circumstances very similar to those faced here. Rightly or wrongly, the Solberg court concluded the peremptory challenge at issue would not constitute a separation of powers violation. Because we are bound by the reasoning in Solberg, we must grant the petition for writ of mandate." View "California v. Superior Court (Tejeda)" on Justia Law

Waters began working as a Petaluma firefighter and paramedic in 2008. She was the first and only woman to hold that position. She claims she was immediately subjected to harassment and discrimination based upon her sex. According to Waters, she was subjected to retaliation when she complained. The city maintains that Waters never complained. In February 2014, Waters went on leave; in May, the city received notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that Waters had filed a charge alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Days later, Waters voluntarily resigned. The city retained outside counsel, Oppenheimer, to investigate. Oppenheimer provided her report to the city only; every page contained an indication that it was confidential and attorney-client privileged. During discovery in Waters’ lawsuit, the court granted a motion to compel production of the report. The court of appeal reversed. The dominant purpose of Oppenheimer’s investigation was not fact-finding, but to provide legal services in anticipation of litigation. She was not required to give legal advice as to what course of action to pursue in order for the attorney-client privilege to apply. The privilege was not waived by the employer’s assertion of an avoidable consequences defense; the city does not seek to rely on the post-employment investigation as a defense, nor could it. View "City of Petaluma v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

John F. LeBouef, an attorney, appeals a probate judgment invalidating a will and living trust purportedly executed by John Patton. Patton's will and trust named LeBouef as the principal beneficiary to a $5 million estate. The trial court factually found that LeBouef caused the loss of the original trust instrument, which made it impossible for the trial court to determine the true terms of the trust. The trial court declared the will and trust invalid and removed Lebouef as trustee. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court's factual findings are disturbing, fatal to LeBouef's contentions, and suggest criminal culpability. The court also affirmed the trial court's postjudgment order approving LeBouef's trust accounting but denied his request for trustee fees, attorney fees, and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses and property management services where the trial court ruled that an award for fees, costs, services, and out-of-pocket expenses would be inequitable and reward LeBouef for his misconduct. View "Butler v. LeBouef" on Justia Law

Attorney Hassell obtained a judgment holding Bird liable for defamation and requiring her to remove defamatory reviews she posted about Hassell on Yelp.com. The judgment contained an order requiring Yelp to remove Bird’s defamatory reviews from its site. Yelp, who was not a party in the defamation action, moved to vacate the judgment. The court of appeal affirmed denial of that motion, but remanded. The court concluded that Yelp is not “aggrieved” by the defamation judgment against Bird, but is “aggrieved” by the removal order; Yelp’s motion to vacate was not cognizable under Code of Civil Procedure section 6632; Yelp has standing to challenge the validity of the removal order as an “aggrieved party,” having brought a nonstatutory motion to vacate; Yelp’s due process rights were not violated by its lack of prior notice and a hearing on the removal order request; the removal order does not violate Yelp’s First Amendment rights to the extent that it requires Yelp to remove Bird’s defamatory reviews; to the extent it purports to cover statements other than Bird’s defamatory reviews, the removal order is an overbroad unconstitutional prior restraint on speech; and Yelp’s immunity from suit under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230, does not extend to the removal order. View "Hassell v. Bird" on Justia Law

William E. Rice and others filed suit against Attorney Gary P. Downs for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of a written agreement Downs drafted to govern a limited liability corporation he formed with Rice and others. Both parties appealed after arbitration. The court concluded that Rice’s malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and rescission claims do not arise out of the operating agreements. Accordingly, the court reversed with respect to the court’s order compelling arbitration of Rice’s legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and rescission causes of action and otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Rice v. Downs" on Justia Law

Attorney Baxter and his former clients, the Bocks, participated in arbitration under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, 6200), stipulating to be bound by the result. In his decision, the arbitrator concluded the services provided by Baxter should be valued at the amount already paid by the Bocks and awarded Baxter nothing. The parties acknowledge that the arbitrator erred in stating the amount of fees paid by the Bocks. When the error was brought to his attention, the arbitrator declined to correct his award. Later, Baxter discovered the arbitrator was in the business of auditing attorney bills and had written extensively about attorney overbilling. Baxter argued unsuccessfully that the arbitration award should be vacated because the arbitrator erred in stating the amount paid and failed to disclose matters relating to bias. The court of appeal affirmed confirmation of the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator was not obligated to disclose the nature of his practice and that Baxter was not prejudiced by the arbitrator’s handling of the evidence. The amount of the court’s award of attorney fees to the Bocks was vacated and remanded to the for reconsideration of a lodestar compensation rate assigned to an attorney. View "Baxter v. Bock" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a personal injury suit after she was hurt in a hay bale accident. In this case, the trial court dismissed with prejudice the complaint for personal injuries during jury trial as a sanction for repeated violations of its orders excluding hearsay and opinion testimony. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in granting the terminating sanction and erred when it granted respondents' motions in limine. Because the orders in limine did not have the effect of granting a nonsuit or judgment on the pleadings, the court determined that the abuse of discretion standard of review applies. In this case, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it made orders excluding evidence that were tantamount to a nonsuit and when it granted the terminating sanction where appellant could not, and did not, demonstrate her opinions about the appearance of hay bales had any rational basis. The trial court also correctly granted respondents' Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude hearsay regarding the source of the hay bales. The trial court also correctly excluded appellant's proffered testimony that she saw Todd's delivery person with a delivery "ticket" or receipt identifying Berrington as the source of the hay bale. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in issuing the terminating sanction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Osborne v. Todd Farm Serv." on Justia Law

Li is a 78-year-old Chinese-American, with limited English and experience with the legal system. Attorney Yan became a member of the bar in 2008. Ignoring blatant conflicts of interest, beginning in 2007, Yan advised and represented Li in a matter involving a contract in which Yan was the obligor and Li was the assignee. In 2010 Li sued, alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unlawful business practices, breach of contract, and fraud. The court awarded $254,411.06, plus prejudgment interest. Following posttrial proceedings, during which the California Bar began disciplinary proceedings, the judge filed an amended judgment awarding Li $552,412.30, including $149,667.29 in prejudgment interest. After an unsuccessful appeal by Yan, Li’s new attorney began efforts to collect the judgment. During examination of Yan, as a judgment debtor, the court upheld service of a subpoena duces tecum by mail (Yan was unable to be located for personal service) and denied Yan’s claim of privilege with respect to his tax returns. The court of appeal affirmed, stating that “enough is enough” and awarding Li costs. View "Li v. Yan" on Justia Law

The Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Association sought to impose fines and related fees of $19,979.97 on the Carsons for alleged rule violations related to the Carsons’ use of their properties as short-term vacation rentals. The Carsons cross-complained for breach of contract, private nuisance, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The Carsons had engaged in short-term rental for many years and believed that they were exempt from new regulations and enforcement efforts. The court ruled against the Carsons on their cross-complaint but also rejected many of the fines as unreasonable. The court upheld fines pertaining to the use of Almanor’s boat slips and ordered the Carsons to pay $6,620.00 in damages. The court determined Almanor to be the prevailing party and awarded $101,803.15 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that the award of attorney’s fees, compared to the “overall relief obtained” by Almanor, was not so disproportionate as to constitute an abuse of discretion. View "Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass'n. v. Carson" on Justia Law

Appellant C. Tucker Cheadle, as administrator of the estate of Robert F. Obarr, appealed an order denying his motion to disqualify counsel for respondent DP Pham LLC. Pham made three loans to Obarr totaling nearly $3 million, and Obarr secured each loan by granting Pham a lien on a mobilehome park he owned in Westminster (Property). This action arose when Obarr allegedly agreed to sell the Property to two different buyers. In March 2013, Obarr allegedly contracted to sell the Property to S.C.D. Enterprises (SCD). SCD promptly assigned the purchase agreement to Westminster MHP Associates, LP (Westminster), which allegedly opened escrow on the Property with Obarr. According to Westminster, it satisfied all contingencies for the sale within 10 days of opening escrow. In April 2013, Westminster filed suit alleging contract claims against Obarr. Obarr died unexpectedly in August. The trial court appointed Cheadle as a special administrator for Obarr’s estate and in that capacity substituted Cheadle for Obarr as a party to this action. Cheadle then filed a cross-complaint alleging an interpleader claim against both Westminster and Pham concerning the Property. Based on Pham’s loans to Obarr, Cheadle also alleged claims against Pham for usury, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, money had and received, unjust enrichment, reformation, and violation of the unfair competition law. Cheadle contended disqualification was required because Pham’s counsel improperly obtained copies of privileged communications between Obarr and his attorney, and used those communications to oppose another party’s summary judgment motion in this case. The trial court denied the disqualification motion because it concluded the communications were not privileged. The Court of Appeal reversed. After reviewing copies of the communications, the trial court concluded they were not privileged based on their content. "A court, however, may not review the contents of a communication to determine whether the attorney-client privilege protects that communication. The attorney-client privilege is an absolute privilege that prevents disclosure, no matter how necessary or relevant to the lawsuit. The privilege attaches to all confidential communications between an attorney and a client regardless of whether the information communicated is in fact privileged. Accordingly, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to review a communication to determine whether the attorney-client privilege protects it." View "DP Pham v. Cheadle" on Justia Law