Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Ketan Bulsara filed a medical-malpractice and wrongful-death action against Dr. Julia Watkins stemming from the stillbirth of his child. A jury returned a judgment in favor of Dr. Watkins. The trial court subsequently denied Bulsara's motion for new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Bulsara's motion for a new trial where Bulsara demonstrated a reasonable possibility of prejudice in light of defense counsel's continued representation of Dr. Watkins after the filing of Bulsara's lawsuit while in possession of confidential information from an expert who previously consulted with Bulsara and his former counsel, in contravention of the Court's rules. View "Bulsara v. Watkins" on Justia Law

During World War II, the U.S. contracted with oil companies for the production of aviation fuel, which resulted in production of hazardous waste. The waste was dumped at the California McColl site. Several decades later, the oil companies were held liable for cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, and sought reimbursement from the government based on the contracts. The district court entered summary judgment on liability, finding that the contracts contained open ended indemnification agreements and encompassed costs for CERLCA cleanup, and awarded $87,344,345.70. The trial judge subsequently discovered that his wife had inherited 97.59 shares of stock in a parent to two of the oil companies. The judge ultimately vacated his summary judgment rulings; severed two companies from the suit and directed the clerk to reassign their claims to a different judge; reinstated his prior decisions with respect to two remaining companies; and entered judgment against the government ($68,849,505). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for reassignment to another judge. The judge was required to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4) and the error was not harmless.View "Shell Oil Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendants in Missouri state court, on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated borrowers, alleging that defendants engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Mo. Rev. State 484.020 when they charged certain fees in the course of refinancing plaintiff's mortgage. Defendants moved the suit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d) and plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's judgment. The court held that plaintiff failed to show that she was charged any fees, directly or indirectly, for legal work performed by non-lawyers. Therefore, plaintiff had not shown injury and did not have standing to bring her claim. In light of plaintiff's lack of standing, the district court should have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than reaching the merits of the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions that the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a First Amendment challenge to a New York rule requiring attorneys to identify themselves as certified specialists to make a prescribed disclosure statement. At issue was whether Rule 7.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 section 1200.53(c)(1), which required a prescribed disclaimer statement to be made by attorneys who stated that they were certified as a specialist in a particular area of law either violated plaintiff's freedom of speech or was unconstitutionally vague. Because enforcement of two components of the required disclaimer statement would violate the First Amendment and because the absence of standards guiding administrators of Rule 7.4 rendered it unconstitutionally vague as applied to plaintiff, the court reversed with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff. View "Hayes v. State of New York Attorney Grievance Comm." on Justia Law

This appeal addressed the factors a district court must consider when determining whether to grant a motion for a preferential trial date to avoid the expiration of Nev. R. Civ. P. 41(e)'s five-year period for bringing a case to trial. Appellant brought an action against Respondents. Before the five-year period had elapsed, the parties stipulated to vacate their previous trial date and reset the trial for a date that was beyond the expiration of the five-year period. Appellant then filed a motion for a preferential trial date. The district court denied the motion and instead granted Appellant's motion to confirm that the five-year rule had been tolled or extended. The district court subsequently held that its previous order was ineffective and dismissed the underlying case, finding that because the stipulation was silent on the five-year period, it was insufficient to toll or extend the running of that period. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a preferential trial and dismissing the complaint, as (1) Appellant filed his motion with more than three months remaining in the five-year period, and (2) Appellant diligently moved his case forward. Remanded. View "Carstarphen v. Milsner" on Justia Law

The circuit court entered an order denying Jimmy Mann's petition to intervene in a dependency-neglect case. Mann filed an unsigned notice of appeal belatedly. The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the notice of appeal filed by Mann was untimely and was not signed as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(b)(1)(B). Mann later filed a motion for belated appeal. The Supreme Court denied DHS's motion to dismiss and granted Mann's motion for belated appeal, holding (1) it was plain from the motion and response that relief was proper; and (2) because there was attorney error in perfecting the appeal in this case, the attorney was referred to the Committee on Professional Conduct for appropriate action. View "Mann v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Lawyers, who represented the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case, were sanctioned for improperly joining a defendant that had never employed the plaintiff and were ordered to pay attorneys' fees of $1,475. The judge also dismissed the entire suit with prejudice. The lawyers filed notice of appeal from the sanctions after expiration of the 30-day deadline, 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, rejecting an argument that since the award of fees was based in part on Rule 11, the award was outside the scope of Rules 54 and 58(a)(3), required a separate document, and did not become final until that document was filed. A post-judgment sanctions order, made while the judgment is already on appeal, does not fit the ordinary understanding of "judgment," and if it is not a judgment, no separate judgment document was required. View "Brennan v. Global Brass & Copper, Inc." on Justia Law

Hardesty, a resident of Utah, solicited Schneider, a physician and resident of Ohio, for an investment involving purchase of medical-malpractice insurance from Hardesty's foreign-based company. The investment was to provide federal-tax benefits and make him a partial owner of an insurance company. Hardesty's $500,000 was transferred and eventually frozen because of SEC proceedings against a Ponzi scheme involving more than $100,000,000. Hardesty hired Nelson, a Utah attorney, to recover the funds. Nelson corresponded with Schneider and the defendants, but did not recover the money. Schneider sued multiple defendants, including Hardesty and Nelson, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. Schneider alleged that letters written by Nelson contained false statements by which Nelson furthered the scheme to defraud Schneider. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The district court improperly applied the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, as opposed to the prima facie standard, in determining whether Schneider pleaded facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Nelson, but the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process and is proper under Ohio's long-arm statute even under the more demanding standard. View "Schneider v. Hardesty" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the district court granting plaintiff's motion to compel outstanding attorneys' fees owed to plaintiff by defendant in connection with plaintiff's representation of defendant in a federal criminal proceeding. The court held that ancillary jurisdiction existed over the fee dispute and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising that jurisdiction. The court also held that defendant forfeited many of the issues he raised on appeal and the court found no merit in his arguments based on the Constitution. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Levitt v. Brook" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class-action in state court seeking overtime wages under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/4a, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). After the state court denied class certification, plaintiff filed suit in federal court, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for his overtime claim in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). After the state suit was resolved for less than $5,000 and the federal case resulted in an award of about $11,000, plaintiff's attorney moved for attorneys' fees of $112,566. The district court awarded $1,864, reasoning that if the attorney had not misrepresented damages until the start of trial, the case would have settled quickly. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. Although a district court has discretion in determining the lodestar, it cannot base its decision on an irrelevant consideration or reach an unreasonable conclusion. It was unreasonable for the court to cut almost all of the attorney's hours based on its conclusion that the case should not have gone to trial. View "Johnson v. G.D.F., Inc." on Justia Law