Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Enrique Sanchez, the petitioner, sought a writ of mandate to vacate a trial court order directing the San Bernardino County Public Defender to assign a new attorney to represent him. This order was issued after evidence suggested that the deputy public defender currently assigned to Sanchez's case made racially charged remarks during plea negotiations, potentially violating the Racial Justice Act (RJA). Sanchez argued that the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion.The trial court received a motion from the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence and evaluate the deputy public defender's conflict of interest. The motion included a declaration from the prosecutor detailing the deputy public defender's remarks, which implied racial bias. During a closed hearing, the trial court read the prosecutor's declaration to Sanchez and asked if he wanted the current public defender to continue representing him. Sanchez expressed his desire to retain his current counsel. However, the trial court later ordered the public defender's office to assign a new attorney, citing potential RJA issues and the risk of ineffective assistance of counsel.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing the deputy public defender. The appellate court noted that the RJA's provisions and the potential for implicit bias created an actual conflict of interest that the deputy public defender could not objectively investigate. Additionally, the trial court's decision to prevent potential future RJA claims and ensure adequate representation was within its discretion. The petition for writ of mandate was denied, and the stay on trial court proceedings was vacated. View "Sanchez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Comedy Store, a stand-up comedy venue in Los Angeles, was forced to close for over a year due to COVID-19 restrictions. In July 2021, the Store hired Moss Adams LLP, an accounting firm, to help apply for a Shuttered Venue Operator Grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration. The parties signed an agreement that included a Washington choice of law provision and a forum selection clause mandating disputes be resolved in Washington state courts. The Store alleges Moss Adams failed to inform it of the grant program's impending expiration, causing the Store to miss the application deadline and lose an $8.5 million grant.The Store initially filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Los Angeles, but the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Store then refiled in the Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting claims including gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Moss Adams moved to dismiss or stay the action based on the forum selection clause. The trial court granted the motion, contingent on Moss Adams stipulating that the Store could exercise its right to a jury trial in Washington state. Moss Adams provided such a stipulation, and the trial court signed an order to that effect.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in failing to properly allocate the burden of proof to Moss Adams to show that litigating in Washington would not diminish the Store’s unwaivable right to a jury trial. The appellate court concluded that Moss Adams did not meet this burden, as it did not demonstrate that Washington law would provide the same or greater rights to a jury trial or that a Washington court would apply California law. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded with instructions to deny Moss Adams’s motion to dismiss or stay the action. View "The Comedy Store v. Moss Adams LLP" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute among co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust, specifically Allison Littlefield, her brothers David and Scott Littlefield, and her aunt Denise Sobel. Allison filed a petition alleging various grievances, including the removal of co-trustees, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the Trust. She claimed that the co-trustees misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, and restricted her and her husband's use of the Ranch. Additionally, she alleged that the co-trustees failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who had been hostile towards her and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to prevent lawsuits that chill the exercise of free speech and petition rights. The court found that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, concluding that the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the petition was based on protected activity. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees. The appellate court found that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous because it was entirely without merit, as no reasonable attorney would conclude that the petition sought to impose liability based on protected activity. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

In September 2017, Attorney Karolyn Kovtun held a meeting with Jennifer Shenefield and her client Mark Shenefield, despite a criminal protective order prohibiting Mark from contacting Jennifer. During the meeting, Mark and Kovtun verbally and emotionally abused Jennifer, and Kovtun threatened to remove their daughter from Jennifer’s custody if she did not sign a custody agreement. Jennifer signed the agreement under duress and contacted the police. Kovtun continued to represent Mark, who was later convicted of violating the protective order. Kovtun then sued Jennifer for recording the meeting without consent, prompting Jennifer to file a cross-complaint against Kovtun.The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Kovtun’s two anti-SLAPP motions and sustained her demurrer to two of Jennifer’s six causes of action. After a bench trial, the court found Kovtun liable for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, awarding Jennifer $50,000 in damages. Mark did not appear at trial, and the court entered judgment against him, awarding Jennifer $250,000 in damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. Kovtun argued that Jennifer’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 and the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). The court concluded that Kovtun waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to timely and properly plead it. Additionally, the court determined that the litigation privilege did not apply to Kovtun’s communications. The judgment against Kovtun was affirmed. View "Shenefield v. Kovtun" on Justia Law

The case involves Lewis Leon Bryson, who was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent (SIWOC) following a jury trial. On May 2, 2020, Bryson's neighbor observed him spraying a naked and screaming Valerie Moreni with a hose in his backyard. When police arrived, Moreni was found unresponsive and covered by a blanket. She later claimed Bryson had raped her. Medical examination revealed she was highly intoxicated and had injuries consistent with her allegations. Bryson was arrested and charged with aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (ASIWOC), SIWOC, tampering with evidence, and obstructing a peace officer.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, presided over the trial. Bryson and Moreni provided conflicting testimonies about their relationship and the events leading up to the incident. Bryson claimed their interactions were consensual and that Moreni was aware of their sexual activities. The jury found Bryson guilty of SIWOC and obstructing a peace officer.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Bryson argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not proposing correct jury instructions and that the District Court erred by excluding evidence about Moreni’s drinking habits and alcohol withdrawal symptoms. The Supreme Court held that the jury instructions were correct and that Bryson’s counsel was not deficient. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence about Moreni’s past drinking habits, as it allowed sufficient evidence regarding her condition and credibility.The Supreme Court affirmed Bryson’s conviction, concluding that the instructions and evidentiary rulings were appropriate and did not prejudice Bryson’s defense. View "State v. Bryson" on Justia Law

Edward Mero was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of tampering with physical evidence. The first murder involved his roommate, who was found dead in their apartment after a fire in 2013. The second murder involved a woman he hired for a date in December 2014, whose body was found in a shallow grave in May 2015. Mero was arrested in 2017 and charged with both murders and related tampering charges.The trial court joined the charges in a single indictment and denied Mero's motion to sever them, reasoning that the distinct evidence for each murder would allow the jury to consider each charge separately. During the trial, a juror was dismissed after overhearing derogatory comments made by defense counsel. Mero later moved to vacate his convictions, arguing that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest due to an undisclosed business relationship with an Assistant District Attorney (ADA). The trial court denied the motion, finding that the potential conflict did not affect the defense.The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decisions, including the denial of the severance motion and the motion to vacate. The court found that the evidence for each murder was distinct enough for the jury to consider separately and that the potential conflict of interest did not impact the defense. Two Justices dissented, arguing that the proof for the second murder was significantly stronger and that the jury would likely be prejudiced by the joinder.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever, as the jury was capable of considering the evidence for each charge separately. The court also found that the potential conflict of interest did not operate on the defense, and Mero's other claims were either without merit or unreviewable. View "People v Mero" on Justia Law

McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("McKenzie Electric") petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a supervisory writ to direct the district court to vacate its order of recusal, deny the motion for recusal, and reassign the case back to Judge El-Dweek. The case began in November 2019, and in July 2020, Judge El-Dweek disclosed his membership in McKenzie Electric. Discovery continued through 2023, and McKenzie Electric disclosed it was seeking significant damages. In May 2024, the respondents filed a motion for a change of venue due to potential juror bias. Following a hearing, the respondents filed a motion for recusal, which Judge El-Dweek granted, citing the appearance of impropriety.The district court's decision to recuse was based on the judge's membership in McKenzie Electric and the potential financial interest he might have in the case's outcome. The respondents argued that the judge's financial interest created a reasonable question regarding his impartiality. The district court agreed and granted the motion for recusal, despite acknowledging the timing of the motion was suspect.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the petition for a supervisory writ. The court emphasized that supervisory writs are issued rarely and cautiously, only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. The court concluded that the claimed injustice, primarily stemming from delay, could not be remedied by granting the writ. The court also noted that any error in granting or denying recusal could be addressed on appeal. Consequently, the North Dakota Supreme Court denied McKenzie Electric's petition for a supervisory writ, finding that this case did not warrant the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. View "McKenzie Electric Coop., Inc. v. El-Dweek" on Justia Law

Mitchell S. Sanderson filed a civil lawsuit against Judge Kari Agotness, seeking $200 million in damages and demanding an investigation into alleged criminal conduct by Agotness. Sanderson served the summons and complaint on Agotness and the Office of Attorney General. Agotness responded with a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and requested attorney’s fees. Sanderson did not respond to these motions. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, found Sanderson’s claims frivolous, and awarded attorney’s fees to Agotness. Sanderson then filed a motion for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which was denied. Sanderson appealed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Sanderson argued that the district court erred in dismissing his claims based on judicial immunity, asserting that Agotness lacked personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo and found that Sanderson’s complaint lacked factual context and support, making it frivolous. The court held that judicial immunity protected Agotness from civil claims arising from her judicial duties, as she acted within her jurisdiction.The Supreme Court also reviewed the award of attorney’s fees under the abuse of discretion standard and found no error in the district court’s decision. However, the amount awarded was incorrect due to a computational error. The Supreme Court modified the attorney’s fees from $3,213.80 to $2,787.45.Sanderson’s appeal also included a challenge to the denial of his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The Supreme Court declined to consider this issue further, as Sanderson failed to adequately brief it.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Sanderson’s case based on judicial immunity, modified the attorney’s fees awarded, and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Sanderson v. Agotness" on Justia Law

Steven M. Hohn, the defendant, was convicted of multiple drug and firearm charges. While awaiting trial, he was detained at CoreCivic, where the Kansas U.S. Attorney’s Office (Kansas USAO) obtained and listened to his attorney-client phone calls. Hohn later discovered this and filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his judgment or reduce his sentence, arguing that the government’s intrusion violated his Sixth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Hohn’s § 2255 petition. The court found that Hohn did not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his attorney-client call because he knew the call would be recorded and did not follow the proper steps to privatize it. The court also concluded that Hohn waived the attorney-client privilege by making the call despite knowing it would be recorded. Consequently, the court did not reach a direct Sixth Amendment analysis, as it determined that the privilege was a necessary underpinning of Hohn’s Sixth Amendment right.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case en banc. The court overruled its precedent in Shillinger v. Haworth, which had established a structural-error rule presuming prejudice when the government intentionally intrudes into the attorney-client relationship without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. The Tenth Circuit held that a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to confidential communication with an attorney requires the defendant to show prejudice. Since Hohn conceded that he suffered no prejudice from the prosecution’s obtaining and listening to his six-minute call with his attorney, his claim failed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying Hohn’s § 2255 petition. View "United States v. Hohn" on Justia Law

Patricia Burnette Chastain was appointed as the clerk of superior court in Franklin County in May 2013 and was subsequently elected to the position in November 2013 and reelected in 2017. In July 2020, an attorney named Jeffrey Thompson filed an affidavit requesting an inquiry into Ms. Chastain's conduct, alleging various instances of misconduct, including distributing gift certificates to jurors, allowing a judicial candidate to address a jury, and acting unprofessionally with correctional officers, among other allegations.Judge John M. Dunlow initially suspended Ms. Chastain and set a hearing date. However, due to a conflict of interest, Judge Dunlow and another judge were recused, and Judge Thomas H. Lock was appointed to preside over the removal inquiry. After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Lock issued an order in October 2020 permanently removing Ms. Chastain from her position based on findings of willful misconduct. Ms. Chastain appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the order, holding that Judge Lock lacked authority under Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution to remove her and remanded the case for reconsideration under Article VI.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that Judge Lock had the authority to preside over the removal proceeding as a replacement for the recused senior regular resident superior court judge. The court also held that procedural due process requires that removal be based only on conduct identified in the initiating affidavit. Furthermore, the court clarified that the standard for removal under Article IV is "misconduct," not "willful misconduct." The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for reconsideration of removal under the proper standards. The court also noted that discretionary review was improvidently allowed regarding the procedure for disqualification under Article VI. View "In re Chastain" on Justia Law