Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

A nonprofit organization sought to provide free legal advice to low-income New Yorkers facing debt-collection lawsuits by training nonlawyer “Justice Advocates” to help individuals complete a state-issued check-the-box answer form. The organization and a prospective Justice Advocate argued that many defendants in such cases default due to lack of understanding, leading to severe consequences. However, New York law prohibits nonlawyers from providing individualized legal advice, and all parties agreed that the proposed activities would violate the state’s unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes.The plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement challenge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that applying the UPL statutes to their activities would violate their First Amendment rights. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits, holding that the UPL statutes, as applied, were a content-based regulation of speech that could not survive strict scrutiny. The court granted a preliminary injunction, barring the Attorney General from enforcing the UPL statutes against the plaintiffs and participants in their program.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the UPL statutes, as applied, regulate speech. However, the Second Circuit held that the regulation is content neutral, not content based, and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. Because the district court applied the wrong standard, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. The court did not reach a final decision on whether the statutes, as applied, ultimately violate the First Amendment, leaving that determination for the district court on remand. View "Upsolve, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, all arising from a gang-related shooting in Visalia, California. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant was a member of the North Side Visalia gang and that he shot individuals he believed to be rival gang members, resulting in one death and serious injury to another. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on expert testimony to establish the defendant’s gang membership and the gang-related nature of the crimes, as well as evidence of prior offenses by the defendant and other gang members. The defense argued that the shooting was not premeditated or gang-motivated, but rather stemmed from a personal dispute, and presented evidence that the defendant had renounced gang affiliation.The Tulare County Superior Court denied the defendant’s pretrial motion to recuse the entire District Attorney’s Office after his former defense attorney joined that office, finding that an effective ethical wall had been established. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, found true the gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance, and returned a death verdict. The trial court entered judgment accordingly.On automatic appeal, the Supreme Court of California reviewed the case. The court held that, due to subsequent legal developments—specifically, its decision in People v. Sanchez and legislative amendments to Penal Code section 186.22 by Assembly Bill 333—the evidence was insufficient to support the gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance. As a result, the court reversed the gang-related findings and the death judgment. The court also ordered a limited remand to allow the defendant to further develop his claim that his trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right of autonomy over the defense, as articulated in McCoy v. Louisiana. The convictions and death judgment were reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "P. v. Cardenas" on Justia Law

Michael G. Carson was convicted by a jury in the Emmet Circuit Court of multiple charges, including safebreaking, larceny, and conspiracy, after being accused of stealing money and personal property from his neighbor, Don Billings. Billings had allowed Carson and his girlfriend, Brandie DeGroff, access to his house to help sell items online, but later discovered that valuable items and cash were missing. Carson was arrested, and his cell phone was seized and searched, revealing incriminating text messages. Carson's defense counsel moved to suppress these messages, arguing the seizure of the phone without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, but the motion was denied.Carson was sentenced to various prison terms for each conviction. He appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the search warrant's adequacy. The Court of Appeals reversed his convictions, ruling the search warrant was too broad and the good-faith exception did not apply. They also found trial counsel ineffective for not seeking exclusion of the phone's contents based on the warrant's broadness. The prosecution appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the search warrant was insufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment, as it allowed a general search of the phone's contents without meaningful limitations. However, the Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, concluding that Carson's counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient given the evolving nature of Fourth Amendment law regarding digital data. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment on this point and remanded the case for consideration of Carson's remaining issues. View "People Of Michigan v. Carson" on Justia Law

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Ohio ordered the closure of "non-essential businesses." A group of dance-studio owners filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that various state and local officials had violated their constitutional rights by issuing these orders. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed this dismissal on August 22, 2022. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing against all defendants except former Ohio Director of Public Health Amy Acton and that the plaintiffs' substantive-due-process and equal-protection claims failed under rational-basis review. The court also affirmed the district court's rejection of the plaintiffs' takings claim.After the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, the district court issued a sanctions order against the plaintiffs' attorneys, Thomas B. Renz and Robert J. Gargasz, for their extensive legal failings throughout the case. The attorneys appealed the sanctions order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision to impose sanctions. The appellate court agreed that the attorneys had violated Rule 11 by presenting a complaint that was haphazard, incomprehensible, and littered with factual and legal errors. The court also upheld the imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, finding that the attorneys had unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings with frivolous claims.The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting sanctions and awarding attorney's fees and costs. The court emphasized that the attorneys' conduct fell short of the obligations owed by members of the bar and that the extreme sanction of attorney's fees was warranted given the egregious nature of their legal failings. The appellate court affirmed the district court's holding that the attorneys violated Rule 11 and section 1927 and upheld the grant of attorney's fees and costs. View "Bojicic v. DeWine" on Justia Law

An attorney, Morris S. Getzels, challenged the constitutional validity of State Bar Rule 2.30, which prevents inactive licensees from acting as private arbitrators and mediators. Getzels argued that this rule violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and California Constitutions by treating inactive licensees differently from others. He claimed that the rule impinges on the fundamental liberty of "freedom of contract" and that there is no rational basis for the rule.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the State Bar's demurrer without leave to amend, leading to a judgment of dismissal. The court found that rational basis review was the appropriate standard for evaluating Getzels's equal protection claim. It concluded that funding the State Bar’s regulatory functions was a legitimate government purpose and that requiring licensees to pay the active membership fee was related to this purpose. The court determined that the State Bar had sufficiently articulated a rational basis for the disparate treatment of inactive licensees.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that rational basis review was the correct standard, as the rule did not involve a suspect class or a fundamental right. The court found that the State Bar had a legitimate interest in maintaining a competent bar and ensuring the professional conduct of its licensees. It concluded that Rule 2.30’s distinction between active and inactive licensees was rationally related to this goal, as inactive licensees acting as private arbitrators and mediators could burden the State Bar’s regulatory system. The court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, upholding the constitutionality of Rule 2.30. View "Getzels v. The State Bar of California" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York implemented a policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19, with exemptions for religious or medical reasons. Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz, employees of the Federal Reserve, applied for religious exemptions, claiming that the vaccine conflicted with their religious beliefs. The Federal Reserve denied their requests and subsequently terminated their employment for non-compliance with the vaccination policy. Gardner-Alfred and Diaz filed a lawsuit, alleging that the Federal Reserve's actions violated their religious liberties under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and various federal statutes.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the Federal Reserve on all federal claims. The court found no genuine dispute of fact regarding the sincerity of Gardner-Alfred's religious objections and concluded that the vaccination policy did not conflict with Diaz's professed religious beliefs. Additionally, the district court imposed discovery sanctions on Gardner-Alfred and Diaz for repeatedly neglecting their discovery obligations, withholding relevant documents, and violating court orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on Gardner-Alfred's claims, agreeing that she failed to provide sufficient evidence of sincerely held religious beliefs. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on Diaz's claims, finding that there were disputed issues of material fact regarding the sincerity of her religious beliefs and whether the vaccination policy burdened those beliefs. The court also upheld the district court's imposition of discovery sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York" on Justia Law

Gary Jordan, the defendant, pled guilty to armed bank robbery and other crimes, receiving a thirty-year prison sentence. After his plea, he discovered that prosecutors had recorded his attorney-client meetings before he entered his plea. Although the prosecutors claimed they did not watch the recordings, Jordan moved to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that the prosecutors' actions rendered his plea unconstitutionally unknowing and involuntary.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Jordan's motion, stating that he could only challenge his guilty plea through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as the alleged unconstitutional conduct occurred before the plea. Jordan did not raise a claim of prejudice or ineffective assistance of counsel, relying solely on the structural-error theory from Shillinger v. Haworth. The district court concluded that Jordan could not prevail on this basis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that under Tollett v. Henderson, a defendant who has pled guilty cannot raise independent claims of constitutional violations that occurred before the plea. Instead, the defendant must show that the plea was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the plea was induced by threats, misrepresentations, or improper prosecutorial promises. The court found that Jordan's challenge failed because he did not pursue an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and relied solely on the now-overruled structural-error rule from Shillinger. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jordan's motion to vacate his guilty plea. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Peyman Roshan, a lawyer and real estate broker, had his law license suspended by the California Supreme Court in 2021 for misconduct. Following this, the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) initiated a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against his real estate license. Roshan filed a federal lawsuit against the DRE, alleging constitutional violations and seeking to enjoin the DRE's disciplinary action.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Roshan's lawsuit, citing the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The district court held that the DRE's disciplinary proceeding was quasi-criminal in nature and that Roshan could raise his federal claims during the judicial review of the DRE action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine. The court noted that the state proceedings were ongoing, involved important state interests, and allowed Roshan to raise his federal claims. The court also determined that the DRE proceeding was quasi-criminal because it was initiated by a state agency following an investigation, involved formal charges, and aimed to determine whether Roshan should be sanctioned by suspending or revoking his real estate license.The Ninth Circuit concluded that all the requirements for Younger abstention were met and that Roshan had not demonstrated any bad faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention inappropriate. Therefore, the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case was proper, and the dismissal of Roshan's lawsuit was affirmed. View "ROSHAN V. MCCAULEY" on Justia Law

Duane Gary Underwood, II was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a stolen firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Underwood appealed his conviction on ten grounds, including the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), the legality of his detention and search, the validity of a search warrant for his phone, the admissibility of certain evidence, voir dire procedures, the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, and the licensure status of the prosecuting Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Underwood's pretrial motions to suppress evidence and dismiss charges. The court admitted evidence from Underwood's phone and grand jury testimony under Rule 803(5). The jury convicted Underwood on all counts, and he was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. Post-trial, Underwood moved to dismiss his conviction, arguing that the AUSA's administrative suspension for nonpayment of bar dues constituted prosecutorial misconduct and a jurisdictional defect. The district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) is constitutional, the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain and search Underwood, and the search warrant for Underwood's phone was valid. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the contested evidence or in the voir dire procedures. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the convictions, and the jury instructions were appropriate. The court also ruled that the AUSA's administrative suspension did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or create a jurisdictional defect, and there was no Brady violation. View "United States v. Underwood" on Justia Law

Berry Alexander Davis was involved in the kidnapping and murder of Monique Baugh and the attempted murder of her boyfriend, Jon, on New Year’s Eve in 2019. Baugh was abducted, placed in a U-Haul truck, and fatally shot. Davis and a co-defendant, Cedric Lamont Berry, were charged with first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and kidnapping. The State's theory was that Davis and Berry attacked Jon on behalf of Lyndon Wiggins, who had a falling out with Jon. Detective Briana Johnson testified about the relationship between Davis, Berry, and Wiggins, indicating they were involved in drug dealing together. Davis waived his right to testify, and the jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release.On direct appeal, Davis argued that the district court erred in joining his trial with Berry’s and that Detective Johnson’s testimony was inadmissible and prejudicial. The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed his conviction and sentence. Davis also filed a pro se supplemental brief raising several claims, including that his sentence violated his constitutional right to a sentencing jury under Blakely v. Washington. The court found these claims lacked merit.Davis subsequently filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and constitutional violations in his sentencing. The district court summarily denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that even if Davis proved the facts alleged, he would not be entitled to relief as a matter of law.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing, as his claims failed on their merits as a matter of law. View "Davis vs. State" on Justia Law