Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The district court denied a petition for habeas corpus by an inmate serving 40 years for attempted murder and aggravated battery on a senior citizen and certified three issues as appealable. The Seventh Circuit clarified the obligation of appointed appellate counsel. Counsel has no obligation to argue claims, urged by the client, that were not certified as appealable, but could request amendment of the certificate if the claims are debatable. If counsel regards certified issues as frivolous those issues need not be argued and counsel should inform the court. Because prisoners do not have a right to appointed counsel on collateral claims there is no tension between the constitutional right to representation and the ethical obligation to not advance frivolous claims.

After his state conviction for murder was overturned, the plaintiff brought federal claims against state officials and prosecutors and malpractice claims against his own lawyers. He stipulated to dismissal of claims against officials; the district court entered summary judgment, rejecting the malpractice claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause, as a matter of law. A report by plaintiff's expert did not establish that the attorneys' performance during voir dire caused the guilty verdict.

The defendants (Connelly firm) represented plaintiff in his divorce until July 2005. In July 2006 plaintiff consulted attorney, Downey, who notified the Connelly firm of a malpractice claim in October. In March 2007 plaintiff signed an agreement to file suit, but Downey did not file. In February 2008 Downey notified the plaintiff that he was terminating representation and stated that the limitations period on the malpractice claim ran out before Downey began representation. In 2009 plaintiff filed a malpractice suit against the Connelly firm, under a contract theory, and against Downey. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded claims against Downey, applying the "discovery rule" rather than the occurrence rule to negligence by the Connelly firm. Although plaintiff knew that certain witnesses were not called during a 2004 hearing, he claims that he relied on the firm's assurances and did not have constructive notice of negligence until a July 2005 hearing. The question of when the limitations period began to run was for a jury.

The district court dismissed indictment of a criminal defense attorney and co-conspirators under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). The underlying criminal enterprises included murder of witnesses in drug cases, bribery of a witness, using the law office to sell cocaine and operate a prostitution business, wire fraud relating to real estate sales, and helping evade parole restrictions. The indictment adequately alleged facts to establish all sub-elements required to establish both a pattern of racketeering activity and an enterprise, as well as all of the other elements of a RICO offense. On a motion to dismiss, the court was required to accept the allegations as true. The government was not required to show a pattern of similar acts or that the enterprise had a "traditional" structure.

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against defendant seeking to sue on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who were exposed to the petroleum coke dust released from defendant's refinery. At issue was whether the district court's order certifying a class was an abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in determining that common issues predominated and in certifying the class where the district court had not seriously considered the administration of the trial when it failed to adequately analyze and balance the common issues against the individual issues.