Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

In a case alleging that Abbott's baby formula contained a harmful bacteria that caused permanent brain damage to J.M.K., the jury found in favor of Abbott. The district court then ordered defense counsel Ghezzi to show cause why she should not be sanctioned under FRCP 30(d)(2) for obstructing each deposition in which she had participated. Defense counsel was subsequently ordered to produce a discovery training video dealing with the impropriety of form objections, witness coaching, and excessive interruptions and to distribute the video to most of the attorneys in her national law firm, Jones Day. The Eighth Circuit reversed. While the court had authority to impose Rule 30 sanctions, generally sanctions should be imposed within a time frame that has a nexus to the behavior sought to be deterred and no advance notice was given of the unusual nature of the sanction being considered. The court noted that once information about an unusual sanction appears in public, the damage to the subject's career, reputation, and future professional opportunities can be difficult if not impossible to repair. View "Sec. Nat'l Bank of Sioux City v. Jones Day" on Justia Law

Bar Admission Rule 204 allows an attorney to join the Pennsylvania bar by motion, without taking the state bar exam, if the attorney has graduated from an accredited law school, has either passed the bar exam or practiced law for the “major portion” of five of the preceding seven years in a reciprocal state, remains a member in good standing of every bar to which the attorney has been admitted, obtains a favorable moral character determination in Pennsylvania, achieves a sufficient score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, and has not previously failed the Pennsylvania bar exam. Pennsylvania allows attorneys admitted in any state to apply for pro hac vice admission, limited to a particular case; 38 states and the District of Columbia have reciprocity agreements with Pennsylvania. An organization dedicated to extending reciprocal bar admission to additional states argued that Rule 204 violates the Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities Clauses, the First Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The district court and Third Circuit upheld the rule, which does not classify attorneys based on residency, but rather, their state of bar admission, and it does not erect a barrier to migration. View "Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice v. Castille" on Justia Law

The parties in these consolidated appeals are involved in a decade-long dispute regarding the TESTMASTERS trademark. The district court granted both parties’ motions for summary judgment, denying nationwide registration to both. Before the court is another appeal from a different district court's order finding one of the parties and his attorney to be in contempt, and ordering the attorney to be briefly jailed. The court vacated the contempt findings as to the Daniel Sheehan, concluding that there was no clear and convincing evidence upon which to find that Sheehan violated the injunction’s requirements. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Test Masters Educ. Serv., Inc. v. Robin Singh Educ. Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2010, Southwest Airlines stopped honoring certain in-flight drink vouchers issued to customers who had bought “Business Select” fares. Customers filed suit, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated plaintiffs. The parties reached a settlement to provide replacement drink vouchers to all class members, and injunctive relief constraining how Southwest could issue future vouchers. The parties negotiated an agreement on fees for class counsel. The court certified the class and approved the settlement’s class relief components, but awarded counsel a smaller fee than requested. Two class members objected, arguing that the settlement was unfair to the class because it was too generous to class counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The “coupon settlement” provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1712, allowed the court to award attorney fees based on the lodestar method rather than the value of the redeemed coupons. While the fee aspects of the settlement include troublesome features, the settlement provides class members essentially complete relief. The financial and professional relationship between lead class counsel and one lead plaintiff created a potential conflict of interest that should have been disclosed, but another lead plaintiff had no conflict and the class received essentially complete relief, so there was no basis for decertification or rejecting the settlement. The court instead removed that plaintiff’s $15,000 incentive award and reduced the lawyer’s fee. View "Markow v. Southwest Airlines Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, appealed from the revised judgment entered by the trial court following this court’s reversal with instructions to enter a new judgment in Chodos v. Borman. Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred when it failed to include postjudgment interest in the final judgment, with interest to run on the $1,717,921 from September 19, 2013, the date of the original judgment. Defendant argued that interest should only run from the date of entry of the judgment following remittitur, November 14, 2014. The court held that interest ran on the $1,717,921 judgment from the date of the original judgment - September 19, 2013 - and that plaintiff is entitled to the costs claimed and interest on those costs from that date. Accordingly, the court modified and affirmed the judgment. View "Chodos v. Borman" on Justia Law

Appellants, a criminal defense attorney and two legal investigators, were convicted in 2012 of breaching duties owed to the court by fabricating evidence and suborning perjury during a 2008 trial in which they represented another individual as defendant. In this appeal, appellants raise claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Two appellants raise claims under Brady v. Maryland, for reversal of their convictions based on the Government’s undisputed breach of its obligation to timely turn over exculpatory evidence. The court agreed with Appellant Daaiyah Pasha that but for the Brady deficiency, there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome in her case. Therefore, the court directed a new trial for Daaiyah Pasha, with appropriate remedies to cure the damage caused by the Government’s delayed disclosure. However, the court did not agree with Appellants Charles Daum and Iman Pasha on the challenges they raise, and so the court affirmed their convictions. View "United States v. Pasha" on Justia Law

After claimants defeated the Government's attempts to forfeit property seized in connection with a criminal investigation, claimants received significant awards of attorney's fees. Claimants' lawyer asked the district court that he be paid those fees directly, pursuant to an assignment in their representation agreement. The Government asserts that the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3727, voids such an assignment. The court concluded that the Government is not estopped from asserting the Anti-Assignment Act; the Act applies to and voids an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 28 U.S.C. 2465; and an award of attorney's fees under CAFRA is a claim against the United States to which the Act applies. The Act does not prevent an attorney from taking an interest in the fees that is effective against the Government; it merely forbids an assignment of the right to be paid directly from the United States Treasury. The court vacated the district court's order awarding attorney's fees directly to the lawyer because the Act applies to void the assignment in the representation agreement between claimants and the lawyer. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kim" on Justia Law

Needler filed a petition for Chapter 11 relief on behalf of “Miller Chrysler Dodge.” Because Needler is not admitted to practice in the Western District of Missouri, he moved to appear pro hac vice and to be employed as debtor’s attorney. The bankruptcy court agreed, stating that his fees and activities would be closely scrutinized. The Trustee discovered that the named entity did not legally exist and, when the error was not timely corrected, moved to dismiss. Needler filed an amended petition under the proper name. Needler subsequently received several orders to show cause for failure to comply with local filing requirements. Needler was unsuccessful in obtaining authority for the debtor to use cash collateral and to retain a broker to sell the business. Relief from the automatic stay was obtained by the primary creditors. Ultimately, the case was dismissed on the debtor’s motion. The court closed the file. Six months later, the Trustee moved to reopen under 11 U.S.C. 350(b), asserting that she had received a complaint from the debtor: that Needler failed to communicate accurate information, made potentially false and misleading representations, and may have filed documents and taken actions that were not authorized. Needler had filed a state court action for attorney fees of $49,000.00 and sought $63,000.00 more in fees and $3,600.00 in expenses. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed denial of the fee application and the order of disgorgement. Since Needler was a repeat offender, in many jurisdictions, the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in imposing the sanction of indefinite suspension from the practice of law and revocation of electronic filing privileges. View "Needler v. Casamatta" on Justia Law

KBR seeks a second writ of mandamus challenging the district court's conclusion that: (1) the Code of Business Conduct (COBC) documents at issue must be produced under Federal Rule of Evidence 612 on the theory that KBR waived attorney-client privilege and work product protection, and (2) KBR waived attorney-client privilege and work product protection for the COBC documents under the doctrine of “at issue” waiver. The court concluded that the district court’s Rule 612 ground for its production order was clear error because there was no basis for the fairness balancing test it conducted and, even had there been, the test failed to give due weight to the privilege and protection attached to the internal investigation materials. The district court may not, in resolving the motion for summary judgment, make any inference in KBR’s favor based on the contents of the privileged documents. The court further concluded that even a cursory review of the compelled documents shows that the December 17 order would require KBR to produce materials that are attorney-client privileged. In addition, the order compelled disclosure of numerous mental impressions of the investigators, based on a clearly erroneous finding that such conclusions were only “background materials” and therefore fact work product. The court granted the writ of mandamus, concluding that the writ will correct the legal error in this case and resolve the dispute over production of the COBC documents in favor of KBR. View "In re: Kellogg Brown & Root" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Robert Coldren and his wife Brook sued defendants Hart, King & Coldren, Inc. (HKC) and William Hart asserting several causes of action arising out of Coldren’s departure from his law practice at HKC. Defendants appealed an order disqualifying HKC’s counsel, Grant, Genovese & Barratta LLP (Grant Genovese), who had been representing both Hart and HKC. The court held there was an unwaivable actual conflict between the two. The court concluded a conflict existed because Coldren was a 50 percent shareholder of HKC, and HKC would have duties to Coldren that were in conflict with Hart’s interests in defeating the litigation. Accordingly, the court ordered Hart to confer with Coldren on the appointment of “neutral” counsel for HKC. The Court of Appeal reversed: Coldren sued both Hart and HKC directly, "not derivatively," on essentially the same claims. The Court surmised Hart’s interest was perfectly aligned with HKC’s interest in seeing Coldren’s claims defeated. Coldren’s contended he could sue his company and then, because he is a 50 percent shareholder, have a say in its defense. "That is not the law." Moreover, the COurt concluded Grant Genovese’s duty of loyalty, as counsel for HKC, ran to HKC, not its shareholders. HKC was free to defend itself and assert relevant counter claims to the detriment of Coldren. View "Coldren v. Hart, King & Coldren" on Justia Law