Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant's counsel moved on appeal for leave to withdraw and filed a brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California. Because counsel communicated with defendant, in a language defendant understands, the substance of the Anders brief and defendant's rights under Anders, defendant's due process rights were not violated. The court concurred with counsel's assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the court granted counsel's motion for leave to withdraw and excused counsel from further responsibilities herein. The court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Moreno-Torres" on Justia Law

While she was a 2012 judicial candidate for the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, Respondent, who had previously served on the Eleventh District Court of Appeals but was no longer an incumbent judge, wore a name badge identifying herself as a judge of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. A five-member judicial commission found that, during the campaign, Respondent violated Jud. Cond. R. 4.3(A). The Supreme Court affirmed the commission’s order in part, holding (1) the portion of Rule 4.3(A) that prohibits a judicial candidate from conveying information about the judicial candidate or candidate’s opponent that the candidate knows to be false is not an overbroad restriction on speech and is not unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the portion of Rule 4.3(A) that prohibits a judicial candidate from knowingly or recklessly conveying information about the candidate or the candidate’s opponent that, if true, would deceive or mislead a reasonable person is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court severed the unconstitutional portion of the rule, found that Respondent committed one rather than two violations, and agreed with the commission that a remand is appropriate. View "In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against O’’Toole" on Justia Law

After defendant Elem suffered injuries in a car accident, she and her attorney conspired to hide and disburse settlement funds from an employee welfare benefit plan she received after the accident. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the district court granted summary judgment for the employer, as well as awarded attorney's fees and costs to the employer. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court had the authority to sanction defendants for their bad faith. The court also concluded that defendant's claim that the district court misapplied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70 was moot and dismissed the appeal. View "AirTran Airways, Inc. v. Elem, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent Appellees, a judge and magistrate on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, from exercising jurisdiction over a foreclosure action filed against a client that Appellant represented. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, concluding that Appellant lacked standing and that Appellant could not prevail on the merits even if he did have standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant lacked standing to bring this case, as lawyers do not have standing to bring claims in their own names based on violations of their clients’ rights. View "State ex rel. Wood v. McClelland" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs in favor of plaintiff. The district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) reinstating plaintiff's home health care benefits. The benefits were awarded to her based on her "prevailing party" status for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The court held that while the TRO caused plaintiff's coverage to be reinstated shortly after it had been terminated, the effect was simply a return to the status quo. Therefore, the issuance of the TRO is an insufficient basis on which to find that plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to an award of fees and costs under the EAJA. Further, the TRO involved no determination on the merits of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the order and judgment of the district court. View "Mastrio v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Based on a complaint from a district court judge alleging that District Associate Judge Emily Dean arrived at a courthouse in an intoxicated state and could not perform her judicial duties, the Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed a notice of charges against Judge Dean. After a hearing, the Commission concluded that Judge Dean had violated the rules of judicial conduct and recommended that the judge be suspended for three months without pay. The Supreme Court granted the application of the Commission and held that Judge Dean should be suspended from her judicial without pay but limited the suspension to thirty days. View "In re Dean" on Justia Law

A complaint was filed with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission concerning certain comments made in a public electronic forum. Judge Michael Maggio, a circuit judge, admitted that he was the author of these posts. The complaint also concerned the judge’s involvement in a hot-check case. Based on the misconduct, the Commission recommended that Judge Maggio be suspended from his duties with pay from the date of the Court’s mandate until the end of the judge’s term and that the judge be removed from judicial office. The Supreme Court accepted the Commission’s findings of fact and the recommendation of removal from office but deemed any further suspension with pay to be inappropriate. Therefore, the Court ordered the removal of Judge Maggio from judicial office, effective as of the date of this opinion. View "Judicial Discipline & Disability Comm'n v. Maggio" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals concern the ongoing tobacco litigation that began as a class action in Florida courts more than two decades ago. At issue is the fate of 588 personal injury cases filed on behalf of purportedly living cigarette smokers who, as it turns out, were dead at the time of filing (predeceased plaintiffs), 160 loss of consortium cases filed on behalf of spouses and children of these predeceased plaintiffs, and two wrongful death cases filed more than two years after the decedent-smoker's death. Plaintiffs' counsel sought leave to amend the complaints, but the district court denied those requests and dismissed the cases. The root of the problem occurred back in 2008 when these cases were originally filed where the law firm that brought the cases did not have the time or resources required to fully investigate all the complaints. Consequently, problem after problem cropped up once the district court started going through the inventory of cases. The defects that led to these consolidated appeals stemmed from counsel's failure to obtain accurate information regarding whether or when certain smokers died. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of these cases where, among other reasons, the problems could have been avoided if counsel had properly investigated the claims, and even if that lack of diligence were somehow excusable, counsel failed to inform the court that so many complaints were defective. View "4432 Ind. Tobacco Plaintiffs v. Various Tobacco Companies, et al." on Justia Law

There is no hospital in Valencia County. People in Valencia County who are faced with a medical emergency must deal with the emergency itself, and find a way to travel twenty to thirty-five miles to an Albuquerque hospital. Ambulances coming from Valencia County can take two hours or longer to transport a patient to the nearest hospital, process the patient, and return. The long turnaround times mean that ambulance companies sometimes run at full capacity, or “zero status,” and cannot respond to calls from new patients because all available ambulances are in use. Since 1987, appellant Living Cross Ambulance Service has been the only ambulance company in Valencia County operating under a permanent certificate from the Public Regulation Commission (PRC). Living Cross has been at zero status and unavailable to transport patients for less than one percent of ambulance service requests. When Living Cross is at zero status, dispatch requests mutual aid from a nearby ambulance company, and if those mutual aid ambulances are also unavailable, the municipality whose EMTs first responded to the scene must transport the patients at the municipality’s expense. This case was a direct appeal from a final order of the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) granting a permanent certificate to American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Response, Emergicare (AMR) for both emergency and nonemergency ambulance service in Valencia County. Living Cross petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court to vacate the final order of the PRC, claiming that the PRC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by granting AMR’s certificate because there was no evidence of need for non-emergency ambulance service in Valencia County, and because there was insufficient evidence of need for additional emergency ambulance service. Living Cross also claimed that the PRC abused its discretion by allowing Living Cross’s former attorney to represent AMR in an initial hearing before ruling on its motion to disqualify the attorney. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the PRC decision to allow the former Living Cross attorney to appear for AMR during the hearing for the temporary permit was contrary to law, and that the wholesale admission of the record from that hearing as evidence in the hearing for the permanent certificate was plain error, requiring reversal. Because the Court determined that the attorney disqualification issue is dispositive, it did not reach the other issues in this case. View "Living Cross Ambulance Serv. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n" on Justia Law

Petitioners Conley Hoskins and Jane Medicals, LLC, sought to vacate a trial court's order disqualifying the Peters Mair Wilcox (PMW) law firm as their counsel. The trial court disqualified the firm on the grounds that the firm previously represented another party, All Care Wellness, LLC, in the same matter for which PWM represented petitioners. Furthermore, the trial court concluded that All Care and petitioners had materially adverse interests. Petitioners argued on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court that the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying petitioners' retained counsel of choice. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court record was insufficient to support the finding that the interests of petitioners and All Care were materially adverse to one another. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court indeed abused its discretion in disqualifying petitioners' counsel. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Colorado v. Hoskins" on Justia Law