Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

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

After the merger of NationsBank and BankAmerica, shareholders filed class actions alleging violations of securities laws. The district court appointed Oetting as lead plaintiff and the Green law firm, as lead counsel. The litigation resulted in a $333 million settlement for the NationsBank class. The Eighth Circuit affirmed approval of the settlement over Oetting’s objection. On the recommendation of Green, the court appointed Heffler as claims administrator. A Heffler employee conspired to submit false claims, resulting in fraudulent payment of $5.87 million. The court denied Green leave to file a supplemental complaint against Heffler. Oetting filed a separate action against Heffler that is pending. After distributions, $2.4 million remained. Green moved for distribution cy pres and requested an additional award of $98,114.34 in attorney’s fees for post-settlement work. Oetting opposed both, argued that Green should disgorge fees for abandoning the class, and filed a separate class action, alleging malpractice by negligently hiring and failing to supervise Heffler and abandonment of the class. The court granted Green’s motion for a cy pres distribution and for a supplemental fee award and denied disgorgement. The Eighth Circuit reversed the cy pres award, ordering additional distribution to the class, and vacated the supplemental fee award as premature. The district court then dismissed the malpractice complaint, concluding that Oetting lacked standing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed that collateral estoppel precluded the rejected disgorgement and class-abandonment claims; pendency of an appeal did not suspend preclusive effects. View "Oetting v. Norton" on Justia Law

Individuals requested documents under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, 6250) from Newark Unified School District. The District inadvertently included 100 documents that, the District contends, are subject to attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. Within hours of the release, the District sent e-mails asking for return of the documents. The recipients cited section 6254.5, contending that inadvertent release had waived the privileges. Under that statute, the disclosure of a document to the public waives any claim by an agency that the document is exempt from release. The District filed suit, seeking return or destruction of the documents. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order preventing dissemination, but ultimately agreed that section 6254.5 effected a waiver of confidentiality. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the legislative history demonstrates the intent to prevent public agencies from disclosing documents to some members of the public while asserting confidentiality as to others. Waiver as a result of an inadvertent release, while not necessarily inconsistent with that intent, was not within its contemplation. To harmonize section 6254.5 with Evidence Code 912, which has been construed not to effect a waiver of the privileges from an inadvertent disclosure, the court construed section 6254.5 not to apply to inadvertent release. View "Newark Unifed Sch. Dist. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Individuals requested documents under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, 6250) from Newark Unified School District. The District inadvertently included 100 documents that, the District contends, are subject to attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. Within hours of the release, the District sent e-mails asking for return of the documents. The recipients cited section 6254.5, contending that inadvertent release had waived the privileges. Under that statute, the disclosure of a document to the public waives any claim by an agency that the document is exempt from release. The District filed suit, seeking return or destruction of the documents. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order preventing dissemination, but ultimately agreed that section 6254.5 effected a waiver of confidentiality. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the legislative history demonstrates the intent to prevent public agencies from disclosing documents to some members of the public while asserting confidentiality as to others. Waiver as a result of an inadvertent release, while not necessarily inconsistent with that intent, was not within its contemplation. To harmonize section 6254.5 with Evidence Code 912, which has been construed not to effect a waiver of the privileges from an inadvertent disclosure, the court construed section 6254.5 not to apply to inadvertent release. View "Newark Unifed Sch. Dist. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

After obtaining terrorism convictions, then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Convertino came under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). An unidentified DOJ source leaked information about that investigation to Ashenfelter, a reporter. The Detroit Free Press published details, including allegations that Convertino withheld Brady materials and threatened a defense lawyer with a baseless criminal investigation. DOJ’s attempts to find the source were unsuccessful. The terrorism convictions were vacated. The defendants’ claims against Convertino under 42 U.S.C. 1983 were dismissed based on prosecutorial and qualified immunity. Convertino was found not guilty of obstruction of justice. Convertino sued DOJ, alleging that the investigation, leak, and disciplinary measures were in retaliation for his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Ultimately, a single claim remained--that DOJ violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, when its unidentified official leaked confidential information to Ashenfelter. The district court granted the motion to compel production from Ashenfelter. Ashenfelter asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at two depositions. The district court found that Ashenfelter had a reasonable basis for fearing that answering the questions would entail self-incrimination, sustained the assertion of privilege, and reduced its ruling to two written opinions—one public, and one sealed. Convertino unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, citing a statement by then-Attorney General Holder that the DOJ “will not prosecute any reporter.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding the claims of privilege. View "Convertino v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

Amber Johnson filed suit against her closing attorney, Stanley Alexander, arguing he breached his duty of care by failing to discover the house Johnson purchased had been sold at a tax sale the previous year. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Johnson as to Alexander's liability. On appeal, the court of appeals held Alexander could not be held liable as a matter of law simply because the attorney he hired to perform the title work may have been negligent. Instead, the court determined the relevant inquiry was "whether Alexander acted with reasonable care in relying on [another attorney's] title search"; accordingly, it reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals: even absent Alexander's admissions, the Court found it was error to equate delegation of a task with delegation of liability. The Court therefore agreed with Johnson that an attorney was liable for negligence in tasks he delegates absent some express limitation of his representation. Applying this standard to the facts, the Court found the grant of summary judgment was proper because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to liability. The case was remanded back to the trial court for a determination of damages. View "Johnson v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New York labor Law (NYLL). After plaintiffs prevailed, the district court awarded plaintiffs' counsel $514,284.00 in attorneys’ fees and $68,294.50 in costs. Of that amount, it awarded $10,425 to reimburse plaintiffs' counsel for costs incurred retaining an expert accountant for plaintiffs' affirmative case against defendants. Defendants appealed, arguing that the district court’s award of fees and costs constituted an abuse of discretion. The court concluded that because section 216(b) does not explicitly authorize awards reimbursing plaintiffs for expert fees, the district court erred in granting such an award pursuant to this provision. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s award of $10,425 in costs for expert fees and remanded to the district court to consider whether the NYLL authorizes the award of such fees and, if so, whether to award them pursuant to the NYLL. In a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part as to defendants' other challenges. View "Gortat v. Capala Bros." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New York labor Law (NYLL). After plaintiffs prevailed, the district court awarded plaintiffs' counsel $514,284.00 in attorneys’ fees and $68,294.50 in costs. Of that amount, it awarded $10,425 to reimburse plaintiffs' counsel for costs incurred retaining an expert accountant for plaintiffs' affirmative case against defendants. Defendants appealed, arguing that the district court’s award of fees and costs constituted an abuse of discretion. The court concluded that because section 216(b) does not explicitly authorize awards reimbursing plaintiffs for expert fees, the district court erred in granting such an award pursuant to this provision. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s award of $10,425 in costs for expert fees and remanded to the district court to consider whether the NYLL authorizes the award of such fees and, if so, whether to award them pursuant to the NYLL. In a summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part as to defendants' other challenges. View "Gortat v. Capala Bros." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and legal malpractice, and defendants moved to strike the entire complaint as to the individual plaintiffs Klotz and Spitz because defendants had no independent legal duty to plaintiffs nor did they act for their personal financial gain. Plaintiffs alleged that a former business associate of theirs, Stephen Bruce, who was a client of defendants, conspired with defendants to unlawfully withdraw from plaintiff SageMill and to usurp a nascent business opportunity of SageMill. The trial court denied the motion. The court reversed the trial court‘s order on plaintiffs‘ second cause of action for conspiracy as to the individual plaintiffs Klotz and Spitz, finding that any advice defendants gave Bruce arose from an attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute, and thus was within the ambit of section 1714.10. The court affirmed as to the remaining claims. View "Klotz v. Milbank,Tweed, Hadley & McCloy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, appealed the district court's dismissal of his putative collection action seeking damages from defendants for violations of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Plaintiff's complaint arose out of his work as a contract attorney in North Carolina. The court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that: (1) state, not federal, law informs FLSA’s definition of “practice of law;” and (2) North Carolina, as the place where plaintiff worked and lived, has the greatest interest in this litigation, and thus the court looks to North Carolina law to determine if plaintiff was practicing law within the meaning of FLSA. The court, however, disagreed with the district court’s conclusion, on a motion to dismiss, that by undertaking the document review plaintiff allegedly was hired to conduct, he was necessarily “practicing law” within the meaning of North Carolina law. The court found that accepting the allegations as pleaded, plaintiff adequately alleged in his complaint that his document review was devoid of legal judgment such that he was not engaged in the practice of law, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom" on Justia Law