Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs invested in oil-and-gas exploration companies and lost money when the companies’ wells produced little oil or gas. They sued the companies and their officers, claiming violations of state and federal law in selling unregistered securities and in making other material misrepresentations and omissions. They also sued Durham, the lawyer who represented the companies. Durham drafted the documents, including joint-venture agreements and private placement memoranda that provided details about the investment opportunity, and told prospective investors he was available to answer questions. Plaintiffs allege that Durham knew the documents contained material misrepresentations and omissions and that the securities were neither registered nor exempt from registration. District courts ruled in favor of Durham. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Kentucky Securities Act imposes liability on anyone who “offers or sells a security” in violation of its terms and any “agent” of the seller who “materially aids” the sale of securities, defined as someone who “effect[s] or attempt[s] to effect” the sale. Ky. Rev. Stat. 292.480(1),(4); 292.310(1). An attorney who performs ordinary legal work, such as drafting documents, giving advice and answering client questions, is not an “agent” under the Act. View "Bennett v. Durham" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a justice of the town court, commenced a proceeding to review a determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that sustained six charges of misconduct against him and determined that he should be removed from office. The charges stemmed from numerous cases Petitioner presided over involving his paramour's relatives in which Petitioner failed to disqualify himself, failed to disclose the relationship, and engaged in ex parte communications. Upon reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that removal was the appropriate sanction and accepted the determined sanction, as Petitioner's conduct demonstrated a misuse of his judicial office and damaged public confidence in his integrity and impartiality. View "In re Young" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine, whether an attorney owes fiduciary duties to third parties who are entitled to funds from Colorado Lawyer Trust Account Foundation (COLTAF) trust accounts. The court of appeals reversed a trial court judgment and held that an attorney did not owe fiduciary duties to a group of medical service providers who were owed funds held in the attorney's COLTAF account. The Providers and the attorney, David J. Mintz,had an extensive and often contentious personal and business relationship over several years. Typically, Mintz would refer an uninsured victim of a motor vehicle accident to the Providers for medical services, paying himself and his clients' medical costs out of proceeds he secured after negotiating insurance settlements for the clients. The relationship turned sour due to a dispute about costs of a joint advertising arrangement, and, for reasons disputed by the parties, Mintz began withholding funds owed to the Providers for his clients' medical costs. Mintz eventually initiated an interpleader action for the withheld funds, naming as defendants his clients and the Providers. The Providers answered with several counterclaims, including breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court bifurcated the action and first determined that the Providers were entitled to the specific amount withheld in Mintz's COLTAF account but no more. In the second trial, the trial court found for the Providers on their abuse of process and breach of fiduciary duty counterclaims.The court of appeals reversed the trial court's holdings for the Providers in the second trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals and affirmed judgment: "the Providers may not maintain a breach of fiduciary duty tort action against Mintz based on his obligations as trustee of his COLTAF account. The attorney-client relationship creates fiduciary obligations with corresponding liabilities on the part of the attorney to the client, not to third parties such as the medical providers in this case. Although Mintz may have had ethical or contractual obligations to disburse money that clients owed to the Providers out of insurance settlement proceeds placed into his COLTAF account, Mintz did not owe the Providers the duties of a fiduciary that give rise to tort liability." View "Accident & Injury Medical Specialists., P.C. v. Mintz" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was what attorney work product production, if any, should be accorded (1) recordings of witness interviews conducted by investigators employed by defendant's counsel, and (2) information concerning the identity of witnesses from whom defendant's counsel was obtained statements. Defendant objected to Plaintiff's request for discovery of these items, invoking the work product privilege. The trial court sustained the objection, concluding as a matter of law that the recorded witness interviews were entitled to absolute work product protection and that the other information sought was work product entitled to qualified protection. A court of appeals reversed, concluding that work product protection did not apply to any of the disputed items. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the recorded witness statements were entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product protection; and (2) information concerning the identity of witnesses from whom Defendant's counsel has obtained statements is entitled to protection if (a) Defendant can persuade the trial court that disclosure would reveal the attorney's tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case (absolute privilege); or (b) disclosure would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney's industry or efforts (qualified privilege). View "Coito v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner Andrew Mackey was convicted several crimes in California. Retained attorney Le Rue Grim represented Mackey in post-trial and post-conviction proceedings. Grim subsequently filed a timely petition in the United States district court asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent filed a response to the district court's order to show cause, but Grim did not file a traverse by the due date. Grim then withdrew from the case but failed to notify the court of his intention to withdraw. Consequently, Mackey was unaware that the district court denied his petition and did not have the opportunity to proceed pro se. Mackey then filed a motion to have the district court vacate its judgment and reopen the case. The court denied the motion, determining that it lacked discretion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court would possess the discretion to vacate and reenter the judgment in order to allow Mackey the opportunity to appeal if it were to find that Grim effectively abandoned Mackey, causing Mackey to fail to file a timely notice of appeal. Remanded for findings as to whether Grim's action or inaction constituted abandonment. View "Mackey v. Hoffman" on Justia Law

The Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed an application for imposition of discipline against Daniel Block, an associate juvenile court judge, for conduct that resulted in his arrest for the crime of operating while intoxicated, first offense. The Commission found Block violated the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended he be publicly reprimanded. The Supreme Court granted the application, concluding (2) the conduct of the judge amounted to a substantial violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct; (2) the impact of the conduct as a whole was enough to adversely impact the public confidence in the judiciary; and (3) the appropriate discipline for the unethical conduct in this matter was a reprimand. View "In re Block" on Justia Law

Scott Liberty appealed a superior court's interlocutory order that denied his motion to reconsider his motion to disqualify attorney Martha Gaythwaite from representing Jeffrey Bennett. Liberty contended that Gaythwaite should have been disqualified because she previously represented Liberty's former attorney David Van Dyke in a legal malpractice action brought by Liberty. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found that Liberty failed to demonstrate that any exception to the "final judgment rule" should have applied to justify reaching the merits of this appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Liberty's appeal. View "Liberty v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Appellee Theresa Dennie filed a paternity action, contending that Appellant Grady Tracy was the natural father of M.T. and requesting custody of the child, with Tracy having visitation. Tracy filed a motion for the appointment of an attorney ad litem, which the circuit court granted. Prior to the final hearing in the matter, Tracy objected to the circuit court's receipt of the ad litem's report. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court left custody with Dennie and awarded Tracy standard visitation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Tracy's objection to the admission of the ad litem's report and in admitting the report, as (1) the report's contents and recommendation were admissible by law or the Court's rules, even if hearsay; and (2) the admission of the report did not violate Ark. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.7. View "Tracy v. Dennie" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Jonathan Keller and a group of business entities, filed a vexatious litigation claim against Defendant, executrix of the estate of Robert Beckenstein. The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' complaint because the claim had yet to ripen into a cognizable claim. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court improperly determined that the trial court correctly had concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' complaint at the time it was filed, as Conn. Gen. Stat. 45a-363 provides the superior court a limited grant of jurisdiction over a complaint filed pursuant to that statute, even if the claim is not ripe when filed. View "Keller v. Beckenstein" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former federal prosecutor and prominent defense attorney, was indicted on charges including violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Reasoning that the RICO charges were inappropriate in light of the disparate nature of the substantive crimes that served as racketeering predicates, the district court dismissed. The Third Circuit reversed. On remand, the government filed a 33-count superseding indictment charging RICO violations, witness tampering (including facilitation of murder), participation in a cocaine-trafficking conspiracy, and tax evasion. The district court ordered the murder counts severed and tried them first, prohibiting the government from introducing evidence of two other witness-murder plots. The jury was unable to reach a verdict. After the jury was dismissed, the government, anticipating retrial, asked whether the court would adhere to its earlier evidentiary rulings. “Absolutely,” was the response, though the court noted that the government would be permitted to try to convince it otherwise. The Third Circuit vacated the ruling excluding evidence of the other plots and remanded for reassignment; the court’s statements before and after the earlier appeal indicate that its "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." View "United States v. Bergrin" on Justia Law