Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the underlying complaint filed by Port of Louisville for defamation and professional malfeasance, holding that Port of Louisville had no legally recognized relationship with R. Wayne Stratton, CPA and Jones, Nale & Mattingly PLC (collectively, Stratton), and therefore, Stratton did not owe the Port of Louisville any duty.Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority filed a lawsuit seeking to terminate Port of Louisville's lease based on allegations that Port of Louisville breached the parties' lease The action was stayed while the claims were referred to an arbitrator, who found that Port of Louisville had not breached the lease. Based on what occurred during the arbitration the Port of Louisville brought a complaint against Stratton for defamation and professional malfeasance. The trial court granted Stratton's motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Port of Louisville had no legally recognized relationship with Stratton that would cause Stratton to owe it a duty. View "New Albany Main Street Properties, LLC v. R. Wayne Stratton, CPA" on Justia Law

In this professional malpractice action, the Supreme Court overruled Alagia, Day, Trautwein & Smith v. Broadbent, 882 S.W.2d 121 (Ky. 1994), and its progeny insofar as they hold that, for a non-litigation legal malpractice claim, a claimant's damages are not irrevocable and non-speculative until the claimant knows the exact dollar amount of damages he or she incurred because of the malpractice, holding that Broadbent was wrongly decided.Plaintiff filed the underlying professional malpractice claim against Defendants for negligently providing her poor legal advice regarding a business she co-owned. The trial judge granted summary judgment for Defendants on the ground that Plaintiff's legal harm did not become "irrevocable and non-speculative" sufficient to trigger Ky. Rev. Code 413.245 until July 2017, and therefore, Plaintiff's complaint was time-barred. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed on slightly different grounds, holding (1) because Broadbent has led to inconsistencies in jurisprudence regarding when damages are considered irrevocable and non-speculative for a professional malpractice claim, Broadbent and its progeny are overruled; and (2) for a non-litigation legal malpractice claim, a claimant's damages are considered irrevocable and non-speculative when the claimant is reasonably certain that damages will indeed flow from the defendant's negligent act. View "Wolfe v. Kimmel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the Judicial Conduct Commission that Family Court Judge Julia Gordon committed judicial misconduct and ordered that she be removed from office, holding that there was no error warranting reversal of the Commission's final order.The Commission served Judge Gordon with notice of formal proceedings outlining six charges against her alleging violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission ultimately found that the claims against Judge Gordon indicated violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and removed her from office. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, given Judge Gordon's numerous violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the sanction of removal was appropriate. View "Gordon v. Judicial Conduct Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Judicial Conduct Commission finding misconduct on the part of Judge Dawn M. Gentry and ordered that she be removed from office as a circuit judge for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Fifth Division, a Family Court division serving Kenton County, holding that there was no error warranting reversal of the Commission's final order.The Commission brought a twelve-count formal proceeding against Judge Gentry alleging that she had used her judicial role to coerce attorneys who served as guardians ad litem in her court to support her campaign, had asked in the courtroom for a yard sign placement, and had utilized court staff to perform campaign work during work hours. Ultimately, the Commission entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order finding that Judge Gentry had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and engaged in the misconduct alleged in ten of the twelve counts charged and determining that removal was the appropriate sanction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on Judge Gentry's numerous violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and her misconduct in office, the sanction of removal was appropriate. View "Gentry v. Judicial Conduct Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order issuing a public reprimand against Beth Lewis Maze, Judge of the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit, Second Division, holding that the Judicial Conduct Commission appropriately issued a public reprimand.Judge Maze inappropriately intervened in her ex-husband's criminal case and then self-reported to the Commission. Ultimately, Judge Maze was criminally indicted for two counts of forgery and one count of tampering with public records, and the Commission brought six counts of judicial misconduct against her. After a hearing, the Commission found that Judge Maze violated SCR 4.020(1)(B)(i) and that her acts constituted misconduct in office and violated SCR 4.300, Kentucky's Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court held that the Commission appropriately issued a public reprimand under the circumstances. View "Maze v. Judicial Conduct Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the appeal brought by Judge Beth Lewis Maze from the denial of the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) denying Judge Maze's motions in JCC proceedings stemming from the JCC's five-count misconduct charge against Judge Maze, holding that the JCC did not err in denying Judge Maze's motion for a stay and that Judge Maze's other challenges were either moot or procedurally infirm.While the misconduct charges against Judge Maze were pending before the JCC, a grand jury charged Judge Maze with two counts of second-degree forgery and one count of tampering with public records. Thereafter, Judge Maze filed three motions in her JCC proceedings. The JCC denied relief on all of the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed the JCC's denial of Judge Maze's motion to stay, dismissed as moot Judge Maze's challenge to the JCC's denial of her motion for a continuance, and dismissed Judge Maze's challenge to the JCC's denial of Judge Maze's motion for an informal hearing, holding that the balance of the equities favored allowing the JCC to move ahead with its disciplinary proceedings. View "Maze v. Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court that the agreement furnished to Carol Greissman for signature did not violate Kentucky Rules of the Supreme Court 3.130, Rule 5.6 as a matter of law, holding that an obligatory Rule of Professional Conduct for attorneys carries public policy weight and that the agreement did not violate Rule 5.6.Greissman, an attorney, was terminated by Rawlings & Associates for refusing to sign an agreement providing for non-solicitation of Rawlings & Associates' customers or clients following the end of her employment. Greissman subsequently brought a wrongful termination claim. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Rawlings & Associates. The court of appeals upheld the circuit court's ultimate decision dismissing Greissman's complaint but concluded that Greissman's complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim because the Rules of the Kentucky Supreme Court did not provide the public policy to support Greissman's wrongful termination claim. The Supreme Court affirmed on other grounds, holding (1) for purposes of wrongful termination actions, an obligatory Rule of Professional Conduct for attorneys carries equal public policy weight as any public policy set forth in statute or the Constitution; and (2) the agreement in this case did not violate Rule 5.6. View "Greissman v. Rawlings & Associates, PLLC" on Justia Law

Sarah Jackson and David Thomas retained Persels & Associates, LLC (Persels) to defend them in debt collection cases. Persels retained Kentucky attorneys K. David Bradley and Robert Gillispie to provide limited representation. The limited representation agreements provided that neither lawyer was required to sign pleadings, enter an appearance, or attend court proceedings. The circuit court subsequently ordered the attorneys to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their failure to enter their appearances and sign documents filed with the court. Persels intervened as a third party. The trial court determined that Parsels and the two attorneys had violated Ky. R. Civ. P. 11 and fined each $1. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that limited-representation counsel is not required to sign the documents prepared as part of the limited representation, and therefore Rule 11 does not apply. Remanded to the trial court to determine whether the limited-representation agreements at issue were reasonable. View "Persels & Assocs., LLC v. Capital One Bank" on Justia Law

At issue in this certification request was the correct interpretation of Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 5A(1)(a), 5A(1)(b), and 5B(1)(c), which were promulgated by the Supreme Court with the objective of complying with Section 117 of the Kentucky Constitution requiring that all justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the court of appeals, circuit and district court shall be elected from their respective districts or circuits on a nonpartisan basis. In response to questions of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Supreme Court answered (1) under Canon 5A(1)(a), judicial candidates may affiliate themselves as members of a political party without restriction but may not portray themselves as the official nominee of a political party; (2) as applied to this case, hosting events for a political party would violate Canon 5A(1)(b); and (3) Canon 5B(1)(c) prohibits a judge who holds her office by way of a gubernatorial appointment from asserting that she seeks to be re-elected. View "Winter v. Hon. Stephen D. Wolnitzek" on Justia Law

This case arose after the settlement of Guard v. American Home Products, Inc., which was brought by Kentucky residents who had taken the diet drug known as Fen-Phen. Each Appellant was a plaintiff in the Guard case and was represented under a contingent fee contract by Appellees, a team of four attorneys. Appellants filed a complaint alleging that Appellees breached their fiduciary duties by wrongfully retaining or improperly disbursing a portion of the Guard case settlement money that should have gone to Appellants. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Appellants, finding three of the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case against the three attorneys for further proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' opinion regarding the issue of the three attorneys' breach of fiduciary duty and reinstated the partial summary judgment entered against them, holding, primarily, (1) the facts established a breach of fiduciary duty that entitled Appellants to summary judgment on the three attorneys' liability as a matter of law; and (2) the court of appeals did not err by declining to review the trial court's denial of summary judgment against the fourth attorney, as the order was not appealable. View "Abbott v. Chelsea " on Justia Law