Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

This appeal stemmed from a dispute regarding a contract the parties entered into, which gave Lewmar the exclusive right to manufacture and sell Steinerʹs patented sailboat winch handle, a device used to control the lines and sails of a sailboat. The parties resolved the dispute when Lewmar made, and Steiner accepted, an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After judgment was entered, Steiner moved for attorneysʹ fees of $383,804 and costs of $41,470. The district court denied attorneysʹ fees but awarded costs of $2,926. The court concluded that Steiner was precluded from seeking fees pursuant to the Agreement in addition to the $175,000 settlement amount because claims under the Agreement were unambiguously included in the Offer; Steiner was not precluded from seeking attorneysʹ fees under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42‐110g(d), because the Offer did not unambiguously encompass claims for attorneysʹ fees under CUTPA; and the court remanded for the district court to clarify whether it considered the claim for attorneys' fees under CUTPA on the merits and if not, to do so. Finally, the court concluded that the district court correctly added costs under the ʺcosts then accruedʺ provision of Rule 68. View "Steiner v. Lewmar, Inc." on Justia Law

Case voluntarily enrolled in a three-year, employer-sponsored educational program, agreeing, in writing that if he quit his job within 30 months of completing the program, he would reimburse his employer, UPI, a prorated portion of program costs. Two months after completing the program, Case went to work for another employer. He refused to reimburse UPI, which sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Case cross-complained, asserting the reimbursement agreement was unenforceable and UPI violated the Labor Code and other statutory provisions in seeking reimbursement. The trial court granted UPI summary judgment on both its complaint and Case’s cross-complaint, and subsequently granted UPI’s motion for attorney fees for defeating Case’s wage claims. The court applied the version of Labor Code section 218.5 in effect at the time of the summary judgment proceedings, rather than the version in effect at the time it awarded fees, which permits fees to a prevailing employer only when the employee’s wage claims have been brought in “bad faith.” The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment, but reversed the attorney fees award. Under California Supreme Court precedent, statutory provisions that alter the recovery of attorney fees are deemed procedural in nature and apply to pending litigation. View "USS-POSCO Indus. v. Case" on Justia Law

VLM, a Montreal-based supplier, sold frozen potatoes to IT in Illinois. After nine successful transactions, IT encountered financial difficulty and failed to pay for the next nine shipments. Invoices sent after delivery included a provision purporting to make IT liable for collection-related attorney’s fees if it breached the contracts. VLM sued; the deadline for an answer passed. The court entered a default. On defendants' motion, the court vacated the default as to IT’s president only. All three defendants then filed answers, contesting liability for attorney’s fees. The judge applied the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code and found that the fee provision had been incorporated into the contract. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods applied. On remand, the judge applied the Convention and held that the fee provision was not part of the contracts and that IT could benefit from this ruling, despite the prior entry of default. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. IT never expressly assented to the attorney’s fees provision in VLM’s trailing invoices, so under the Convention that term did not become a part of the contracts. VLM waived its right to rely on the default by failing to raise the issue until its reply brief on remand. View "VLM Food Trading Int'l, Inc. v. Ill. Trading Co." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether dissatisfied beneficiaries of a testator’s estate have standing to bring legal malpractice or claims against the attorney who drafted the testator’s estate planning documents. Specifically, petitioners Merridy Kay Baker and Sue Carol Kunda sought to sue respondents Wood, Ris & Hames, Professional Corporation, Donald L. Cook, and Barbara Brundin (collectively, the Attorneys), who were the attorneys retained by their father, Floyd Baker, to prepare his estate plan. Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to abandon what was known as the "strict privity rule," which precluded attorney liability to non-clients absent fraud, malicious conduct or negligent misrepresentation. The advocated instead for a "California Test" and for an extension of the third-party beneficiary theory of contract liability (also known as the Florida-Iowa Rule), both of which petitioners asserted would allow them as the alleged beneficiaries of the estate, to sue the Attorneys for legal malpractice and breach of contract. After review of this case, the Supreme Court declined to abandon the strict privity rule, and rejected petitioners' contention that the court of appeals erred in affirming dismissal of their purported fraudulent concealment claims. View "Baker v. Wood, Ris & Hames" on Justia Law

In 2008, Nunez purchased a commercial fishing vessel built in 1944, for $1. Having no fishing or boating expertise, Nunez hired Pennisi to install a refrigeration system and work on the boat’s pumping and electrical systems. The refrigeration system did not work properly; apparently Nunez moved the boat before Pennisi finished work and there was some evidence that the generators were inadequate for the system. Nunez sued Pennisi for the allegedly substandard work. Nunez contends he never read the complaint, but he signed a verification. Pennisi filed a cross-complaint, asserting breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and goods and services rendered. The court dismissed claims by Nunez and, after a jury verdict, entered judgment in favor of Pennisi. Subsequently, Pennisi sued Nunez and his attorneys alleging malicious prosecution. The court denied a motion by Nunez under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.162 (anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) to strike the malicious prosecution complaint and awarded $8,315 in attorney fees to Pennisi. The court of appeal reversed in part, finding that some of Pennisi's claims lacked the minimal merit necessary to avoid being stricken as a SLAPP, but that Pennisi’s malicious prosecution action had minimal merit. View "Nunez v. Pennisi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. provided legal services to the defendants, a group of trusts, in connection with the financing and purchase of four hydroelectric dams. Dissatisfied with the representation they received, defendants refused to pay the full sum of fees billed by Fraser Trebilcock. To recover these unpaid fees, Fraser Trebilcock brought the underlying suit against defendants for breach of contract. Pursuant to MCR 2.403, the matter was submitted for a case evaluation, which resulted in an evaluation of $60,000 in favor of Fraser Trebilcock. Fraser Trebilcock accepted the evaluation, but defendants rejected it. The case proceeded to trial, resulting in a verdict for Fraser Trebilcock and a judgment totaling $73,501.90. Throughout the litigation of this breach-of-contract action, Fraser Trebilcock appeared through Michael Perry (a shareholder of the firm) and other lawyers affiliated with the firm. At no point did Fraser Trebilcock retain outside counsel, and there was no indication that the firm entered into a retainer agreement with its member lawyers or received or paid a bill for their services in connection with the litigation. After receiving the verdict, the parties filed posttrial motions: defendants moved for a new trial, and Fraser Trebilcock moved for case-evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O), seeking to recover, inter alia, a “reasonable attorney fee” under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b) for the legal services performed by its member lawyers. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial, and granted Fraser Trebilcock’s motion for case-evaluation sanctions, ruling in particular that Fraser Trebilcock could recover an attorney fee as part of its sanctions. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff law firm could recover, as case-evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b), a “reasonable attorney fee” for the legal services performed by its own member lawyers in connection with its suit to recover unpaid fees from defendants. Contrary to the determinations of the trial court and the Court of Appeals majority, the Supreme Court concluded it could not. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals was reversed in part, the trial court's award of fees was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Frazier Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. v. Boyce Trust 2350" on Justia Law

Hess, an attorney, had worked on a number of medical-malpractice cases before his law firm, Kanoski terminated his employment. Many of these cases settled after Hess’s termination, and Hess was not compensated. He sued under his employment agreement and under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, adding claims of tortious interference, wrongful discharge, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. In 2011, the district court dismissed each of Hess’s claims. On remand the district court held that Hess was not entitled to compensation for the post-termination settlements. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, based on its interpretation of Hess’s employment contract provisions that Hess would receive bonus pay in the amount of 15 percent of all fees “generated over the base salary (or $5,000 per month),” that the bonus shall increase to 25 percent “on all fees received annually in excess of $750,000.00,” and that that, “where the Corporation retains clients upon Employees [sic] termination that Employee has no proprietary interest in fees to be earned since the Employee is to be fully compensated through his salary and/or bonus for all work done while an Employee of the Corporation.” View "Hess v. Kanoski & Associates" on Justia Law

Attorney Novak represented Kelly between 2007 and 2012. The two executed a contingency attorney fee agreement that granted Novak lien rights over any settlement Kelly received. In 2011, Novak filed a probate petition which alleged Kelly was a pretermitted spouse of Teitler and negotiated a considerable settlement. The probate court approved the settlement which awarded Kelly a substantial interest in the Dana Teitler Trust. Kelly died. Novak filed suit to enforce the attorney lien in the 2007 fee agreement. The probate court denied the petition, holding that the proper procedure to recover fees was by claim against Kelly’s estate under section 9000; plaintiff was required to file a creditor’s claim within one year of Kelly’s death; the statute of limitations barred the claim; and section 5000(a), which provides a nonprobate transfer, was inapplicable. The court of appeal reversed. Novak had not forfeited a claim under section 9391, that he was an equitable lienholder and did not need to file a creditor’s claim in probate. An assignment provision in the settlement agreement in the event of Kelly’s death did not destroy Novak’s pre-existing attorney fee lien rights. View "Novak v. Fay" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an attorney, and Respondent, a non-lawyer, entered into a fee-sharing agreement in connection with certain lawsuits. Petitioner later filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on the issue of whether Respondent was entitled to compensation for services he performed in relation to the litigation, seeking a ruling as to whether a sharing of legal fees with Respondent would violate Rule 5.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The federal district court certified the following question to the Supreme Court: “Are the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct statements of public policy with the force of law equal to that given to statutes enacted by the West Virginia State Legislature?” The Supreme Court affirmed the question, as modified, in the affirmative, holding (1) Rule 5.4, which proscribes the sharing of fees between lawyers or law firms and non-lawyers, is an explicit judicial declaration of West Virginia public policy with the force and effect of law; and (2) accordingly, a fee-sharing agreement between a lawyer or law firm and the non-lawyer that violates the provisions of Rule 5.4 is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable. View "Rich v. Simoni" on Justia Law

Law firms Campbell Harrison & Dagley, L.L.P. (CHD), and Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, P.L.L.C. (CNBW) (collectively, the firms), challenged the district court’s partial vacatur of most of an arbitration award, rendered pursuant to a fee agreement (combining a high hourly-rate fee and a low-percentage contingency fee), which governed the firms’ representation of Albert G. Hill, III, and his wife, Erin Hill. After arbitrating a dispute over the requested payment to the firms under the fee agreement, the arbitrators awarded them approximately $28 million. Although the district court, inter alia, enforced the hourly-rate fee award, it vacated the contingency-fee award as unconscionable. In rejecting the arbitrators’ determinations regarding the uncertainty of recovery, the reasonableness of the total fee, and unconscionability, the Fifth Circuit concluded the district court “substitute[d] [its] judgment for that of the arbitrators merely because [it] would have reached a different decision”. As a result, it erred in vacating the contingency-fee-portion of the award and related awards (for the arbitration, the firms’ attorney’s fees, other fees, expenses, and arbitrators’ compensation; and pre-judgment interest on the contingency-fee portion). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court with respect to the unconscionability issue, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court was affirmed in all other respects. View "Campbell Harrison & Dagley, et al v. Hill" on Justia Law