Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The trial court ordered plaintiff and her attorney to pay attorney's fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure 1038. The attorney appealed. The court held that section 128.7 provides for attorney fees sanctions against an attorney; the Attorney General here elected not to seek section 128.7 relief; and, unless and until the Legislature amends section 1038 to authorize an award of "sanctions" against counsel, defense costs and fees may not be imposed against counsel pursuant thereto. Therefore, the award against the attorney is reversed and the attorney is awarded costs on appeal.View "Settle v. State of California" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, a law firm and an attorney, on her legal malpractice claim. The court concluded that there was no triable issue of material fact as to causation where plaintiff disregarded the firm's advice to accept an initial settlement in an underlying putative spouse lawsuit. When plaintiff obtained new counsel, she also disregarded his advice to accept the settlement. Plaintiff ultimately recovered nothing from the underlying suit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.View "Moua v. Pittullo, Howington, Barker, Abernathy, LLP" on Justia Law

The Commissions challenged a post judgment order denying their motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, Cal. Civ. Proc., 102.5. The court affirmed the order denying attorney fees because section 1021.5 does not apply in this instance where the financial burden of this litigation was not out of proportion to the Commissions' pecuniary stakes in the proceedings. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Commissions failed to meet the "financial burden" element of section 1021.5, the court need not consider whether it satisfied the other criteria upon which the trial court denied the motion.View "Children & Families Commission v. Brown" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Joanne Peake purchased a home from Marviel and Deanna Underwood. About two years later, Peake brought an action against the Underwoods and the Underwoods' real estate agent, Paul Ferrell. Peake sought to recover damages for defendants' alleged failure to disclose defective subfloors in the home. After the case had been pending for more than one year, Ferrell moved to dismiss and for monetary sanctions against Peake and her counsel Norman Shaw under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, arguing Peake's claims were factually and legally frivolous because the undisputed evidence showed Ferrell had fulfilled his statutory and common law disclosure duties, and Peake had actual notice of facts disclosing prior problems with the subfloors. Peake declined to dismiss the action during the statutory safe harbor period, and instead amended her complaint to add claims similar to claims she had previously dismissed. The trial court found Ferrell met his burden to show Peake's claims were "without legal or evidentiary support" and Peake's continued maintenance of the lawsuit demonstrated "objective bad faith" warranting sanctions. As sanctions, the court dismissed Peake's claims against Ferrell and ordered Peake and her attorney to pay Ferrell for his attorney fees incurred in defending the action. On appeal, Peake and Shaw challenged the sanction order. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding the section 128.7 sanctions. View "Peake v. Underwood" on Justia Law

During the trial of State v. Deedy and on the fifth day of jury deliberations, the circuit court conducted five separate court proceedings that were not open to the public. The transcripts from the court sessions were subsequently sealed, and a mistrial was declared as a result of a deadlocked jury. Petitioners, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now, filed petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus seeking to prohibit the circuit court from sealing any portion of the trial transcript and to prohibit the court from closing the courtroom in a similar manner in a re-trial of State v. Deedy and in any other criminal proceeding. On remand, the circuit court unsealed the transcript. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed the writ of prohibition as moot because the circuit court already unsealed the transcript of the closed proceedings; (2) denied the writ of mandamus as unnecessary in light of the directive of this opinion; and (3) adopted procedures that a court is required to follow before denying public access to a transcript of a closed proceeding.View "Oahu Publ’ns, Inc. v. Hon. Karen Ahn" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Nancy Lee hired Attorney William Hanley to represent her in a civil suit. After the litigation settled, Lee sought a refund of unearned attorney fees and unused expert witness fees she had advanced to Hanley. Not having received a refund, Lee hired Attorney Walter Wilson and terminated Hanley. Attorney Hanley thereafter refunded certain expert witness fees, but no attorney fees. More than a year after hiring Wilson, Lee filed a lawsuit against Hanley seeking the return of the unearned fees. Hanley filed a demurrer to Lee’s second amended complaint, based on the one-year statute of limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action with prejudice. Lee appealed. Upon review, the Court of Appeal held that to the extent a claim is construed as a wrongful act not arising in the performance of legal services, "such as garden variety theft or conversion, section 340.6 is inapplicable. . . . Here, the facts alleged in Lee’s second amended complaint could be construed as giving rise to a cause of action for the theft or conversion of an identifiable sum of money belonging to her. This being the case, we cannot say that Lee’s second amended complaint demonstrates clearly and affirmatively on its face that her action is necessarily barred by the section 340.6 statute of limitations." Because this action had not reached a point where the court could determine whether the wrongful act in question arose in the performance of legal services, and thus, whether or not section 340.6 applied, the demurrer should not have been sustained. View "Lee v. Hanley" on Justia Law

Warden Gregory McLaughlin appealed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus to William Payne. In 2006, Payne was convicted on two counts of aggravated child molestation, three counts of child molestation, and one count of cruelty to children. At trial, then District Attorney for Douglas County, David McDade, appeared as a witness for the State. He identified himself to the jury as the district attorney, identified the examining prosecuting attorney as his assistant, and outlined his duties as district attorney. He also testified that his daughter was a classmate of the victim named in the indictment; his daughter told him what she had heard of the crimes; he participated in an interview of Payne early in the investigation; during the first few days of the investigation, law enforcement efforts were focused on finding Payne; and, that after his interview, he realized he would likely be a witness at trial, and removed himself from Payne's prosecution. Payne appealed, but his convictions were affirmed. In 2009, Payne filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising, inter alia, a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The habeas court found that McDade had a conflict of interest, had testified falsely at trial, and that appellate counsel should have pursued these two issues on appeal. The habeas court also found that had the issues been raised on appeal, the result of Payne's direct appeal would have been different. The court granted the writ of habeas corpus. The warden argued that the habeas court erred in finding that the representation by Payne's appellate counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the assistant district attorney who acted at trial did so under the authority vested in McDade as the elected district attorney. McDade's disqualifying personal conflict of interest removed that authority, and he was not replaced as provided for by statute. View "McLaughlin v. Payne" on Justia Law

The appellate counsel of Defendant, a prisoner under a sentence of death, requested that the Supreme Court depart from its established procedure for requiring counsel to proceed with diligent appellate advocacy during mandatory review in death penalty cases where the defendant expresses a desire to be executed. Defendant in this case wished to argue in favor of the death sentence. Under Rule 4-1.2(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, a lawyer is required to abide by her client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation. Appellate counsel sought an order permitting him to withdraw from representation to avoid an alleged violation of his ethical responsibility to his client. The Supreme Court denied current counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding that there was no ethical violation in requiring counsel to continue to prosecute this appeal for the benefit of the Court in meeting its statutory and constitutional duties.View "Robertson v. State" on Justia Law

On February 14, 2013, the Attorney General received an ethics complaint, alleging possible violations of the Ethics Act by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Robert W. Harrell, Jr. The complaint was originally submitted by a private citizen to the House Legislative Ethics Committee. That same day, the Attorney General forwarded the complaint to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), and SLED carried out a 10-month criminal investigation into the matter. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Chief of SLED and the Attorney General petitioned the presiding judge of the state grand jury to impanel the state grand jury on January 13, 2014. Acting presiding judge of the state grand jury, the Honorable L. Casey Manning, subsequently impaneled the state grand jury. On February 24, 2014, the Speaker filed a motion to disqualify the Attorney General from participating in the grand jury investigation. On March 21, 2014, a hearing was held on the motion after which the court sua sponte raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Another hearing was held, and the court found, as presiding judge of the state grand jury, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear any matter arising from the Ethics Act, and refused to reach the issue of disqualification. The court discharged the grand jury and ordered the Attorney General to cease his criminal investigation. The Attorney General appealed that order to the Supreme Court. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court erred in concluding that the House Ethics Committee had exclusive jurisdiction over the original complaint. While the crime of public corruption could include violations of the Ethics Act, the state grand jury's jurisdiction is confined to the purposes set forth in the constitution and the state grand jury statute, as circumscribed by the impaneling order. While the Court reversed the circuit court's order, it "in no way suggest[ed] that it was error for the presiding judge to inquire whether the state grand jury was 'conducting investigative activity within its jurisdiction or proper investigative activity.'" The case was remanded for a decision on whether the Attorney General should have been disqualified from participating in the state grand jury proceedings. View "Harrell v. Attorney General of South Carolina" on Justia Law

Defendant-respondent Stephen Lipworth won a judgment against Plaintiff-appellant Raj Singh, and successfully moved to amend the judgment to add certain aliases Singh used. The trial court then granted Lipworth's application for the sale of certain property that Singh transferred to his wife, who in turn transferred the property to Sunman Mehta. The trial court concluded that "Mehta" was another alias Singh adopted to avoid paying his creditors. The court set aside that series of transfers and ordered the property sold to satisfy the judgment. The order granting Lipworth's application for sale became final after various appeals were dismissed. In the case before the Court of Appeal, Singh, along with his wife Karen and "Mehta," sued Lipworth alleging he used "fraudulent representations" to persuade the trial court in the prior case that Singh was "hiding some properties from his creditors using different names such as Archana Singh and Suman Mehta." After several frivolous motions were decided against Singh, the trial court invited Lipworth to file a motion to require Singh to furnish security or have the case dismissed pursuant to the vexatious litigant statutes. Lipworth did so, and filed both a demurrer and a special motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court found Singh to be a vexatious litigant with no reasonable probability of prevailing in the litigation because the lawsuit amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final judgment and post-judgment orders. The trial court ordered "Raj Singh aka Suman Mehta" to furnish security and dismissed the lawsuit as to plaintiff when no such security was furnished. The trial court then granted the anti-SLAPP motion as to Karen Singh, and awarded attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal, and Lipworth filed a motion for sanctions against plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to section 907 and rule 8.276 for bringing a frivolous appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded sanctions were warranted in this case. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment and imposed sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorney. View "Singh v. Lipworth" on Justia Law