Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from a class action that began more than a quarter century ago where Idaho state prisoners at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI) prevailed on their claims that, inter alia, because of deliberate indifference, without any connection to a legitimate penological purpose, the inmates were subjected to needless pain and suffering on account of inadequate medical and psychiatric care. The district court issued an injunction to remedy the constitutional violations and the injunctions remained in effect in 2008 and 2009 when the facts giving rise to this case occurred. The Portland law firm of Stoel Rives, LLP was appointed to represent the prisoner class. At issue on appeal was whether Stoel Rives was entitled to an attorneys' fee award in the class action under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e. The court held that, in this case, the judge had discretion to consider whether Stoel Rives's work on a motion to compel conformity to the injunction was "directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief." The district court acted within the bounds of its discretion in awarding fees in a reasonable amount for bringing about that conformity with the injunction. Here, Stoel Rives's work was what one would expect of a lawyer working for a client that could afford its efforts but that was not indifferent to the cost. The firm showed no evidence of milking the case, and the fees were "directly and reasonably incurred." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Balla v. State of Idaho, et al." on Justia Law

In 2000, husband and wife, with an estate valued at $3 to $4 million, revised their estate plan with the assistance of their Illinois lawyer, a Minnesota lawyer, and a law partner of their son-in-law. The plan included a trust that treated their son and his daughter, India, less favorably than their two daughters and other grandchildren. When they died within a month of each other in 2004, their son and India sued the three lawyers, alleging malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court rejected a conflict-of-interest argument and dismissed most of the claims as untimely or barred. India's minor status tolled the limitations period, but the court dismissed her claim as premature. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and held that India's claim should have been dismissed with prejudice. The district court properly chose Illinois's statute of limitations over Minnesota's; and properly rejected waiver and equitable-tolling arguments. The court properly dismissed the fiduciary-duty claims as barred by res judicata; there had been state court litigation concerning sale of the family home. There was no evidence to support India’s contention that her grandparents intended her to receive more than the documents provide. View "Ennenga v. Starns" on Justia Law

In 1999 Beasley filed a patent application for personalized postage stamps. In 2001 the PTO issued notice of allowance. Beasley then entered into a licensing agreement with Avery, specifying that Avery would assume responsibility for prosecution of the patent application and would pay patent prosecution expenses. Beasley appointed Renner to prosecute his application. A Renner attorney filed a supplemental information disclosure statement concerning prior art references. The PTO issued a second notice of allowance. Beasley transferred ownership USPPS. USPPS and Avery entered into an agreement. Later, the PTO vacated its notice of allowance and issued final rejections. Beasley and USPPS alleged that Avery mismanaged the application. Beasley’s suit for was dismissed for lack of standing. USPPS filed suit, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, based on Avery’s alleged representation that Beasley was the client of Renner. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The Fifth Circuit transferred to the Federal Circuit, finding that jurisdiction was based, in part, on 28 U.S.C. 1338 and that the alleged malpractice involves a question of patentability, even if no patent actually issued. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that it had jurisdiction and that the complaint was untimely. View "USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former shareholder of XTO, moved for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses following the stipulated dismissal of her derivative action, which was largely mooted by measures taken by XTO's Board shortly after plaintiff's complaint was served. In addition to XTO, the former members of XTO's Board were named as defendants. Plaintiff objected to the fact that the cash bonuses paid to XTO's CEO and four other officers were not tax-deductible because they did not meet the requirements of section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The court denied the motion because an arguably poor business judgment, without more, did not excuse demand on the Board in a derivative action. View "Freedman v. Adams, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, alleging section 16, article V, of the Iowa Constitution, as implemented by Iowa Code sections 46.2, 46.4-46.10, and 46.14, violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the laws. The court concluded that the State Judicial Nominating Commission was a "special limited purpose" entity for its sole function was to select the most qualified candidates for judicial appointments and forward the names of these candidates to the Governor for a final appointment. This narrow function had a disproportionate effect on a definable group of constituents - members of the Iowa Bar - over other voters in the state. Therefore, the election of the attorney members of the Commission was an election of special interest. Applying rational basis review, the court agreed that the district court's Iowa system of election for the Commission's attorney members by and from members of the Iowa Bar was rationally related to Iowa's legitimate interests. Therefore, Iowa's system did not violate plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Carlson, et al. v. Justice David Wiggins, et al." on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute over fees awarded to an ad litem appointed in connection with the proposed division of a personal injury settlement between an incapacitated plaintiff and his guardian. The court-appointed attorney requested fees on an unsworn invoice that specified numerous tasks performed, but did not specify when they were performed, who performed them, or the amount of time spent. The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the full amount awarded to the guardian ad litem (GAL) as compensation, although it was sufficient to show that he necessarily spent some amount of time fulfilling his role as GAL. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Arnold & Itkin, a Texas-based law firm, appealed from a judgment of the district court sanctioning it for its conduct in opposing the arbitration of a dispute between its clients. Arnold & Itkin challenged the determination that the conduct was sanctioned and the amount and form of the sanctions imposed. The court largely affirmed the judgment of the district court, except that the court remanded in part to permit the district court to consider whether it should impose certain limits on its requirements that Arnold & Itkin's attorneys attached the sanction order to all future applications for admission pro hac vice in the Southern District of New York. View "Prospect Capital Corp. v. Enmon" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the dismissal of all claims alleged in a putative class action complaint filed pursuant to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725. Appellees (Lawyers) were South Carolina attorneys who in 2006 and 2007 instituted several "group action" lawsuits in South Carolina state court against numerous car dealerships under the South Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act (Dealers Act), S.C. Code Ann. 56-15-10 et seq. Appellants (Buyers) were car buyers who received mailings from Lawyers regarding the Dealers Act litigation. Buyers sued Lawyers in this action alleging that Lawyers violated the DPPA when they obtained and used Buyers' personal information without their consent in connection with the Dealers Act litigation. The court held that the district court erred in its determination that the conduct of Lawyers did not constitute solicitation within the contemplation of the applicable DPPA prohibition. Nevertheless, the district court correctly ruled that Lawyers' conduct in respect to Buyers' personal information was undertaken in anticipation and in connection with litigation, a use permitted by the DPPA. View "Maracich v. Spear" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the due administration of justice and one count of knowingly making a materially false statement to a governmental agency. Defendant's convictions stemmed from him falsely representing that he was a licensed attorney. The court held that the evidence adduced at trial supported the jury's verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury in accordance with defendant's definition of "corruptly"; and assuming the district court erred in applying one or more of the enhancements to defendant's offense level, thereby incorrectly calculating the advisory guidelines range, the Government, as proponent of the sentence, had discharged its burden to show that defendant's substantial rights were not affected by any error because the district court made detailed, alternative findings that it would have sentenced defendant to 65 months of imprisonment, notwithstanding whether any or some of the enhancements were applied to his offense level. View "United States v. Richardson, Jr." on Justia Law

This was an adversary proceeding arising out of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy of debtors. The trustee filed suit against A&R, the former debtors' counsel, seeking disgorgement of the attorney's fees awarded during the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court ordered a sanction for A&R's failure to adequately disclose various connections it had to the debtors and creditors, but found that A&R did not have a disqualifying adverse interest. The trustee appealed, arguing that A&R was not disinterested and that all legal fees should have been disgorged. The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, A&R did not have a disqualifying interest; given the bankruptcy court's factual findings were reasonable based on the record, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in ordering disgorgement of only a portion of the retainer; and the bankruptcy's court's decision to deny the amendment was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Waldron v. Adams & Reese, L.L.P." on Justia Law