Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Defendants manufacture vitamins and nutritional supplements, including glucosamine pills, designed to help people with joint disorders, such as osteoarthritis. Several class action suits were filed under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), claiming violations of states’ consumer protection laws by making false claims. Eight months later, class counsel negotiated a nationwide settlement that was approved with significant modifications. The settlement requires Rexall to pay $1.93 million in fees to class counsel, plus $179,676 in expenses, $1.5 million in notice and administration costs, $1.13 million to the Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation, $865,284 to the 30,245 class members who submitted claims, and $30,000 to the six named plaintiffs ($5,000 apiece) Class members, led by the Center for Class Action Fairness, objected. The Seventh Circuit reversed, characterizing the settlement as “a selfish deal between class counsel and the defendant.” While most consumers of glucosamine pills are elderly and bought the product in containers with labels that recite the misrepresentations, only one-fourth of one percent of them will receive even modest compensation; for a limited period the labels will be changed, in trivial respects. The court questioned: “for conferring these meager benefits class counsel should receive almost $2 million?” View "Pearson v. NBTY, Inc." on Justia Law

Karton filed suit against its former client for unpaid fees and costs and obtained a default judgment, including an award of attorney fees under the parties' retainer agreement. The court reversed the trial court's determination that Karton is the prevailing party for purposes of an award of attorney fees and concluded that the client is the party prevailing on the contract within the meaning of Civil Code section 1717; reversed the trial court's determination that Karton is the prevailing party for purposes of an award of costs and concluded that the client is the party prevailing within the meaning of section 1032; and concluded that Sears v. Baccaglio provided no basis to affirm the awards of attorney fees and costs to Karton. View "David S. Karton v. Dougherty" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Paul Choiniere and P&D Consulting, Inc. sued defendants, attorney Anthony Marshall and his law firm, Harris Beach, PLLC, alleging that they made negligent and intentional misrepresentations while representing a client in a matter involving commercial loan guaranties. Choiniere argued that he relied upon the misrepresentations when deciding not to call a $1 million loan that he made in September 2003, and P&D Consulting argued that it relied upon the misrepresentations when deciding to loan an additional $1.3 million in June 2004. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision granting defendants summary judgment. In sum, the Court held that there were several material issues in dispute that preclude summary judgment, including the viability of the guaranty agreement after an April 28, 2004 letter, whether plaintiffs' reliance on the April 28 letter was justifiable, whether Marshall was authorized to send the letter, and whether there are any economic damages. View "Choiniere v. Marshall and Beach, PPLC" on Justia Law

Appellant, an attorney, appealed the district court's order finding that he committed ethical violations, and disqualifying him from representing plaintiff in a pending action against Gateway. Appellant's violations stemmed from his use of knowledge gained from questionably-obtained emails to prepare a public records request. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the ethical violations are intertwined with the disqualification order and the United States Supreme Court has held that disqualification is not subject to interlocutory appeal. View "Thurbon v. Gateway Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

This action arose from an in appropriate relationship between Judge Susan B. Flood, Polk County Judge, and her bailiff. The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) found that Judge Flood’s conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended the sanction of a public reprimand. The Supreme Court held that there was clear and convincing evidence in support of the JQC’s findings of fact as to both violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and commanded Judge Flood to appear before the Court for the administration of a public reprimand. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge Susan B. Flood" on Justia Law

The district court awarded Naegel, counsel for a prevailing social security disability benefits applicant, significantly reduced attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. 406(b). He claimed that the court should have approved his request for $26,049.73, the 25-percent contingency fee accepted by his client and permitted by statute. The Commissioner of Social Security, representing the interests of the claimant whose benefits pay for the fees, opposed that sum as a “windfall” in light of counsel’s 35.5 hours of work. The district court agreed and awarded $12,780. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that: “Within the 25 percent boundary,” prevailing counsel bears the burden of “show[ing] that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” View "Lasley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

Jaymie Godwin Wilfong, a circuit court judge in Randolph County, admitted to having had a more than two-year-long affair with a local man. The judge deliberately intertwined the affair with her judicial office, and the evidence before the Judicial Hearing Board “established a clearly articulable nexus between the judge’s extrajudicial misconduct and her judicial duties.” The Hearing Board determined that the judge’s conduct constituted eleven separate violations of seven Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended that she be severely sanctioned. The Supreme Court adopted the Hearing Board’s finding that the judge committed eleven violations of seven Canons and held that the judge must be censured, suspended until the end of her term, and required to pay the costs of investigating and prosecuting these proceedings. View "In re Judge Jaymie Godwin Wilfong" on Justia Law

The hearing panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission determined that Judge Judith W. Hawkins, a county judge in the Second Judicial Court, had committed a series of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission recommended serious sanctions short of removal. The Supreme Court found, based on clear and convincing evidence, that Judge Hawkins violated Canons 1, 2A, and 5D of the Code of Judicial Conduct and that those violations warranted the most severe sanction in a judicial disciplinary proceeding - that of removal from the bench. Accordingly, the Court removed Judge Hawkins from the office of county judge, effective when this decision became final. View "Inquiry Concerning Judge Judith W. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, law firms that seek to collect debts, obtained a judgment from the district court declaring that New York City's Local Law 15, which regulates debt collection agencies, was void as applied to plaintiffs. Because this case raises unresolved and significant issues concerning the scope of New York State's regulatory authority over attorneys, the court certified the following two questions: (1) Does Local Law 15, insofar as it regulates attorney conduct, constitute an unlawful encroachment on the State’s authority to regulate attorneys, and is there a conflict between Local Law 15 and Sections 53 and 90 of the New York Judiciary Law? and (2) If Local Law 15’s regulation of attorney conduct is not preempted, does Local Law 15, as applied to attorneys, violate Section 2203(c) of the New York City Charter? View "Eric M. Berman, P.C., et al. v. City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff retained defendant to represent her in an action against Ralphs Grocery Company for breach of contract where plaintiff subleased property owned by Ralphs. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against defendant, alleging in the third amended complaint that defendant committed legal malpractice by failing to designate and call an expert witness at trial. The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend and plaintiff appealed the judgment of dismissal. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to allege a relevant breach of duty by defendant and has only established that a trial court error, which precluded her from establishing that the sewage discharge into her premises was covered by the sublease with Ralphs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kasem v. Dion-Kindem" on Justia Law