Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications recommended that a magistrate, who had a private practice in addition to his work on the bench, be publicly reprimanded for placing advertisements in phone books featuring his photograph in his judicial robes. The Supreme Court granted the application of the commission, finding that the magistrate violated the provisions of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct by attempting to influence potential clients to use his services as an attorney by using his office as an indicator of his trustworthy and responsible nature. The Court then concluded that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction. View "In re Meldrum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions on her for making factually unsupported and harassing statements in documents filed with the court. The court concluded that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 did not authorize the sanctions imposed in this case; even if Rule 9011 was inapplicable, it did not mean that the bankruptcy court lacked authority to sanction plaintiff; the court had jurisdiction over the appeal where the penalty imposed was criminal in nature because the monetary penalty was punitive, payable to the court, and non-compensatory; plaintiff did not move for recusal or object to the judge's participation and she therefore forfeited any objection; the bankruptcy court did not commit an obvious error by failing to recuse sua sponte and there was no showing of prejudice or miscarriage of justice; there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome before a different judge where the evidence of plaintiff's contempt was undisputed and aggravated; and plaintiff's remaining claims about the contempt process were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Isaacson v. Manty" on Justia Law

Companion, a South Carolina insurer, appealed the district court's dismissal of its complaint alleging legal malpractice against defendants, Louisiana residents and attorneys at a Louisiana law firm. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed Companion's complaint against defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction in a Texas Forum where defendants maintained no offices in Texas, had no personnel stationed there, paid no Texas taxes, and had no registered agent for service of process; defendants transacted only limited and discrete business in Texas over an appreciable period; and the venue issue was unnecessary for a decision in this case because the court affirmed the dismissal on personal-jurisdiction grounds. View "Companion Property and Casualty Co. v. Palermo, et al." on Justia Law

Ten valuation complaints were filed by a salaried employee on behalf of a corporate entity as the property owner. In each case, the county board of revision (BOR) ordered a decrease in value. The school board argued before the board of tax appeals (BTA) that the original complaints should be dismissed because a salaried employee of the corporation who was not himself a lawyer but purported to act on behalf of the corporate owner signed the complaints. The school board acknowledged that Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A)(1) explicitly authorizes salaried corporate employees to file on behalf of the corporate owner but argued that the statute cannot be given effect because that kind of filing constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The BTA granted the school board's motion and ordered that the appeals be remanded to the BOR to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the complaints properly invoked the jurisdiction of the BOR where the legislature acted within its authority in amending section 5715.19(A)(1) to permit a salaried employee of a corporation who is not a lawyer to file a complaint on behalf of the corporation. Remanded. View "Marysville Exempted Village Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Union County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

The parties dispute whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d)(2), limited the amount that plaintiff, a prisoner who qualified as a prevailing party who would ordinarily be entitled to an award of attorney's fees, could recover from defendant for attorney's fees incurred in defending his judgment on appeal to 150 percent of the monetary relief awarded to him at trial. The court held that the fee cap in section (d)(2) did not apply to attorney's fees earned in conjunction with an appeal in which prison officials sought unsuccessfully to reverse a verdict obtained by the prisoner before the district court. The court granted plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees on appeal and referred the matter to the Appellate Commissioner to determine the amount of such fees, as well as the amount of reimbursable costs. View "Woods v. Carey" on Justia Law

The pro se plaintiff filed a qui tam suit against the university and nine chemistry professors, charging that they defrauded the United States in violation of several federal statutes by obtaining federal grant money on the basis of plagiarized research papers. He does not allege that the fraud harmed him, but apparently sought a “bounty,” 37 U.S.C. 3730(d)(1-2). The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that to maintain a suit on behalf of the government, a qui tam plaintiff has to be either a licensed lawyer or represented by a lawyer. Georgakis is neither and cannot maintain the suit in his individual capacity because he does not claim to have been injured. View "Georgakis v. IL State Univ." on Justia Law

Amicas agreed to a merger for $5.35 per Amicas share. Shareholders sued in Massachusetts state court, contesting the adequacy of a proxy statement used to seek approval. A preliminary injunction stopped the vote. The suit settled when a third party made a $6.05 per-share tender offer. Amicas shareholders gained $26 million. The lawyers who filed the suit sought attorneys’ fees based on the difference between the bids. Carolina Casualty had issued a policy covering what Amicas and its directors pay their own litigation lawyers and what Amicas must pay adversaries’ lawyers. The state court awarded $3,150,000, using a lodestar of $630,000 (1,400 hours at $450 per hour) times five, to reflect the risk of nonpayment and “an exceptionally favorable result.” Carolina Casualty filed a diversity suit, claiming that coverage was limited to $630,000. The district judge affirmed, but denied damages for bad faith or vexatious failure to pay. The Massachusetts appeal settled with payment of a sum that cannot be affected by the results of federal litigation. The Seventh Circuit held that the case was not moot, but affirmed, rejecting an argument that the award constituted excluded “civil or criminal fines or penalties … punitive or exemplary damages, the multiplied portion of multiplied damages.” View "Carolina Cas. Ins. Co v. Merge Healthcare Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, the founder and former CEO of HealthSouth, was found guilty of federal funds bribery, honest services fraud, and conspiracy to commit the latter offenses. Defendant subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial filed while Siegelman I was before the Supreme Court on certiorari, and the denial of his motion to recuse the trial judge. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Henkle's denial of the motion to recuse under 28 U.S.C. 455(b) where the judge's ex parte meeting with the Marshals regarding a disputed factual issue did not lead an objective disinterested lay observer to entertain significant doubt about the judge's impartiality and the judge did not have personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding, nor was he likely to be a material witness. Addressing five of the six grounds defendant relied on in seeking a new trial, the court also concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Fuller's handling of the motion for new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Scrushy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Minnesota homeowners represented by the same counsel, brought thirteen separate claims against defendants, nearly all of which rested on a "show me the note" theory. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss nearly all of the claims and sua sponte sanctioned counsel, awarding attorney fees to defendants. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court had diversity jurisdiction as the claims against the sole nondiverse defendant lacked a reasonable basis in fact and law; plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss; the "show me the note" theory had been repeatedly rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court and this court applying Minnesota law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against counsel under Rule 11 where, at the very least, counsel had lacked a frivolous basis for appeal. View "Welk, et al. v. Ally Financial,Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Appellant St. Simon's Waterfront, LLC ("SSW") sued its former law firm, Appellee Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, P.C. ("Hunter Maclean"), over the firm's representation in a commercial real estate venture. During the litigation, SSW sought production of communications between Hunter Maclean attorneys and the firm's in-house general counsel, which took place during the firm's ongoing representation of SSW, in anticipation of potential malpractice claims by SSW. Hunter Maclean asserted that the materials were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, but the trial court disagreed and ordered their production. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further consideration. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the same basic analysis that is conducted to assess privilege and work product in every other variation of the attorney-client relationship should also be applied to the law firm in-house counsel situation. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "St. Simons Waterfront, LLC v. Hunter, Maclean, Exely & Dunn, P.C." on Justia Law