Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court granting the Commonwealth's petition under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and ordering that a certain superior court judge be recused from acting on Defendant's postjudgment motion to dismiss the indictments against him or for a new trial in his criminal case, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for consideration of whether Defendant was prejudiced by trial counsel's potential conflicts of interest. On remand, Defendant moved to dismiss the indictments against him or for a new trial on the basis of Brady violations. The motion judge raised the question whether she could be impartial because the prosecutor had since been appointed as a superior cour judge and was now her judicial colleague. The Commonwealth subsequently filed a motion in support of recusal. The judge denied the motion, concluding that she could be fair and impartial. The Commonwealth filed a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. A single justice allowed the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the prudent and legally correct result under the circumstances was for the judge to recuse herself. View "Commonwealth v. Cousin" on Justia Law

Dustin Irwin died in 2014, in the Ward County, North Dakota jail. The circumstances of his death led to an investigation and criminal charges against Ward County Sheriff Steven Kukowski. Initially, Divide County State’s Attorney Seymour Jordan was appointed to handle the criminal proceeding. Jordan determined the circumstances justified a petition for removal of Sheriff Kukowski from office. Governor Jack Dalrymple appointed Jordan as the special prosecutor for the removal. Ultimately, Jordan requested to withdraw and Governor Burgum appointed attorney Daniel Traynor as the special prosecutor. After completion of the removal proceedings, Traynor submitted his bill to the State on May 1, 2017. The State forwarded the bill to Ward County. Ward County refused to pay the bill. Traynor sued the State and Ward County to recover the unpaid fees. The State responded to Traynor’s complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. Ward County answered Traynor’s complaint and cross-claimed against the State. The State moved to dismiss Ward County’s cross-claim. Traynor moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court entered judgment in Traynor’s favor against the State, and awarded interest at 6% per annum. The State argued Ward County had to pay Traynor’s bill because Chapter 44-11, N.D.C.C., failed to address who should pay for the special prosecutor fees in a county official’s removal proceeding, and therefore the catch-all provision in N.D.C.C. 54-12-03 applied. Ward County argues neither Chapter 44-11, N.D.C.C., nor Chapter 54- 12, N.D.C.C., imposes an obligation upon a county to pay the fees of an attorney appointed by the Governor for proceedings for the removal of a public official. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred with the district court that Chapter 44-11, N.D.C.C., was silent regarding the payment of special prosecutor fees in a removal proceeding, and it was not necessary or required to import N.D.C.C. 54-12-03 into Chapter 44-11. Based on these facts, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in finding a contract existed for legal services between Traynor and the State. The Court agreed with Traynor that the district court erred by awarding 6% per annum interest instead of the 1.5% monthly interest rate stated on its bill. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Traynor Law Firm v. North Dakota, et al." on Justia Law

Nguyen worked as a dentist until she was terminated. Nguyen hired attorney Ford, who filed a discrimination lawsuit. The federal district court entered judgment against Nguyen. Ford’s retainer agreement with Nguyen specifically excluded appeals. Nguyen hired Ford to represent her in an appeal and signed a separate retainer agreement. Nguyen alleges that during the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Ford charged exorbitant fees and costs, and caused unnecessary delays. In April 2015, Ford successfully moved to withdraw as counsel. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment against Nguyen. Nguyen sued Ford for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, stating “Although [Ford] continued to represent [Nguyen] in the district court tribunal, [Nguyen] had to retain new appellate counsel” and that, but for Ford’s untimely filing of a brief in the district court case, summary judgment would not have been granted against her.The trial court dismissed the action as untimely (Code Civ. Proc., 340.6(a)). The court of appeal affirmed. No reasonable factfinder could conclude it was objectively reasonable for Nguyen to believe Ford continued to represent her in the district court action. Once Ford filed notices in that case describing herself as Nguyen’s former attorney and stating she was placing a lien for on any judgment in Nguyen’s favor, any objectively reasonable client would have understood that Ford was no longer representing Nguyen. View "Nguyen v. Ford" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying Dolores' motion for recovery of attorney's fees under the Copyright Act. The district court had granted summary judgment for Dolores on Doc's Dream's complaint seeking a declaration that the late religious leader Dr. Eugene Scott completely abandoned his works to the public domain. The district court then denied Dolores' motion for attorney fees under 17 U.S.C. 505.The panel held that, even when asserted as a claim for declaratory relief, any action that turns on the existence of a valid copyright and whether that copyright has been infringed invokes the Copyright Act. Therefore, attorney's fees may be available under section 505 of the Copyright Act. View "Doc's Dream, LLC v. Dolores Press, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court found that Respondent, the Attorney General of Indiana, committed acts of misdemeanor battery, conduct that violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d), and that Respondent should be suspended for thirty days with automatic reinstatement.The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a disciplinary complaint against Respondent alleging that his conduct at a local bar involving various forms of nonconsensual and inappropriate touching violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d). A hearing officer found that Respondent violated the rules and recommended that Respondent be suspended for at least sixty days without automatic reinstatement. The Supreme Court concluded that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d) and suspended Respondent from the practice of law for a period of thirty days. View "In the Matter of Curtis T. Hill, Jr." on Justia Law

Roger Feltman and TRRP LLC (Feltman) appeal a district court judgment dismissing their malpractice lawsuit against attorney Daniel Gaustad and the Pearson, Christensen & Clapp law firm (Gaustad). The court concluded summary judgment was appropriate because Feltman failed to establish a factual dispute as to the elements of legal malpractice. Finding no reversible error in that decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed judgment. View "Feltman, et al. v. Gaustad, et al." on Justia Law

Nelson, a California attorney specializing in asbestos defense, was employed by Tucker. Tucker’s personnel handbook stated that all documents, including email and voicemail, received, created, or modified by any attorney are Tucker's property. In 2008, Nelson exchanged e-mails with Gradient, a scientific consult on litigation, about medical research articles relating to causes of mesothelioma. Counsel in a Kentucky litigation matter served Tucker with a subpoena seeking documents related to payments made by Tucker to Gradient to fund medical research articles and communications between Tucker and Gradient regarding such articles. Tucker withheld certain documents on the basis of attorney-client and the attorney work-product privileges but produced the e-mails authored by Nelson, who had left the firm. Nelson, subpoenaed for a deposition, claimed the e-mails contained his privileged attorney work-product and demanded they be sequestered and returned to him.Nelson filed suit, claiming that as a result of Tucker’s production of his e-mails, his work-product was available on the Internet and disseminated to asbestos plaintiffs’ attorneys, interfering with his ability to work effectively and resulting in his termination from his new firm. After Tucker’s unsuccessful attempt to compel arbitration and unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court ruled in favor of Nelson. The court of appeal reversed, concluding that Tucker, not Nelson, was the holder of the attorney work-product privilege with respect to the emails. On remand, the trial court granted Tucker judgment. The court of appeal affirmed. Each of Nelson’s claims was barred by the law of the case or by the litigation privilege, Civil Code 47(b). View "Nelson v. Tucker Ellis, LLP" on Justia Law

William Persichette, through Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C., brought an underinsured-motorist (“UIM”) action against Owners Insurance Company (“Owners”) for allegedly handling his insurance claim unreasonably and in bad faith. About three months later, Persichette retained Mark Levy of Levy Law, P.C. (collectively “Levy Law”) as co-counsel. Owners promptly moved to disqualify Levy Law pursuant to Colo. RPC Rule 1.9(a) on the ground that Levy Law was Owners’ longtime former counsel and had a conflict of interest. The district court denied the motion, finding that Levy Law’s representation of Persichette was not “substantially related” to Levy Law’s decade-plus representation of Owners. Owners then filed a C.A.R. 21 petition invoking the Colorado Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Owners’ motion to disqualify, and reversed. View "Persichette v. Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Hitkansut owns the patent, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Stress Relief Using Multiple Energy Sources.” While the application that later issued as that patent was pending, Hitkansut entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and provided ORNL with a copy of the then-unpublished patent application. ORNL staff prepared research reports, received funding, authored publications, and received awards for research, based upon unauthorized use of the patent. Hitkansut sued ORNL, alleging infringement under 28 U.S.C. 1498. The Claims Court determined that certain claims of the patent were invalid but that other claims were valid and infringed. Although Hitkansut originally sought a royalty between $4.5-$5.6 million, based on a percentage of the research funding obtained by ORNL, the Claims Court awarded $200,000, plus interest, as the hypothetically negotiated cost of an up-front licensing fee. The Federal Circuit affirmed.Hitkansut then sought attorneys’ fees and expenses under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a). The Claims Court awarded $4,387,889.54.The Federal Circuit affirmed. Section 1498(a) provides for the award of attorneys’ fees under certain conditions, unless “the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified.” The “position of the United States” in this statutory provision refers to positions taken during litigation and does not encompass pre-litigation conduct by government actors, but the examples of conduct cited by the Claims Court demonstrate that the position of the United States was not substantially justified even under this narrow definition View "Hitkansut LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

The State Bar’s mandatory continuing legal education program, Business & Professions section 6070(c) exempts “[f]ull-time employees of the State of California, acting within the scope of their employment.” When the Bar implemented the continuing education program in 1992, two Bar employees informally concluded attorneys employed by the superior court were not exempt state employees. Obbard, a full-time research attorney at the Alameda County Superior Court, asserted that he was exempt. The Bar disagreed, acknowledging that superior courts are funded by the state but reasoning that Obbard’s paychecks are issued by the superior court (rather than the State Controller) and he is “covered by different labor rules and collective bargaining agreements.” The Bar has been inconsistent on this position.The trial court and court of appeal agreed with Obbard. The principal common law test of an employment relationship is whether the employer has the right to supervise and control the work and to discharge the worker. The presiding judge of each superior court is a state officer, who controls the hiring, firing, and supervision of superior court employees, or delegates those duties to the court’s executive officer. The superior court is part of the state judicial branch, administered by the state Judicial Council, and funded through the state budget. View "Obbard v. State Bar of California" on Justia Law