Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The Formal Charge against respondent Justice of the Peace Mary Foret arose from a small claims case in her court brought by Norris and Gloria Comeaux against Charles and Carol LeBlanc. Both prior to and after the filing of the lawsuit, respondent engaged in numerous ex parte communications with the parties concerning the substantive issues in the case. Respondent also engaged in improper independent investigation into the background of the case by having her constable obtain the police report of an altercation between Comeaux and LeBlanc. Despite these ex parte communications and independent fact-finding about the case, respondent did not recuse herself. When the Comeaux case was set for hearing, respondent knowingly allowed the constable to participate in the hearing to a significant extent. Respondent also allowed the Constable to participate in her decision-making process by asking him at the conclusion of the hearing what he thought of the case. The Judiciary Commission of Louisiana recommended, and the Supreme Court adopted, that respondent be suspended with pay for sixty days and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution of these proceedings.View "IIn re: Justice of the Peace Mary Foret" on Justia Law

James Forbes settled a personal-injury action while he was represented by Louis St. Martin. Forbes later sued St. Martin, challenging the validity of his contingency-fee arrangement and the associated attorneys’ fees. The Chancery Court granted summary judgment to St. Martin; the Court of Appeals reversed the chancery court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, finding that summary judgment in favor of St. Martin was proper. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Louis St. Martin, Deceased: Forbes v. Hixson" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a fee dispute between associated attorneys arising out of mass-tort cases in Copiah County between 2005 and 2010. The first appeal arose out of a joint-venture agreement between Don Mitchell and the law firm of Sweet & Freeese, PLLC. The second appeal stemmed from an alleged oral referral agreement between McHugh Fuller Law Group, PLLC, and the members of the joint venture. The appellants in this consolidated appeal challenged the County Chancery Court’s denial of their motions to compel arbitration of claims brought against them by Mitchell and the McHugh Fuller Law Group, PLLC. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Freese v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed charges against Judge Brenda Sheehan of the Circuit Court after Sheehan pleaded guilty to the charge of driving under the influence, alleging that Judge Sheehan’s conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and recommending that Judge Sheehan receive the sanction of a public reprimand. The Supreme Court approved the JQC’s findings and recommendation of a public reprimand, holding that Judge Sheehan’s conduct at issue in this case was reprehensible, undermined the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and would not be tolerated.View "In re Sheehan" on Justia Law

Jennifer Holmes and James Lindsay entered the home of Laurence Wilkey, Holmes's former boyfriend. They tied him up, beat him, and took a number of items from his home. The State charged Holmes and Lindsay with first degree robbery, burglary, kidnapping, assault, and firearm theft. Holmes and Lindsay argued that they did not intend to commit a felony but were instead repossessing things that Wilkey had originally stolen from Holmes. A jury convicted them on most, but not all, counts. On appeal, Holmes and Lindsay argued that the prosecutor's remarks, particularly during closing arguments, constituted misconduct that prejudiced both defendants. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor committed misconduct but split as to whether that misconduct caused prejudice. "[G]iven the magnitude of the problem and the lawyers' inability to control their conduct," the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals' dissent and reversed the trial court. View "Washington v. Lindsay" on Justia Law

The Judicial Conduct Board concluded that respondent Judge Ernest Balivet violated Canon 3(B)(8) of the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court ordered review on its own motion. The alleged violation stemmed from the judge's handling of a grandfather's petition for guardianship of his granddaughter, and a subsequent request for termination of the parents' parental rights to the child. Before the hearing before the Judicial Conduct Board, the parties identified three disputed issues : (1)whether respondent failed to rule in a timely manner on the motion to revoke guardianship filed by the child’s parents; (2) whether respondent caused unnecessary delay in failing to schedule a hearing on the grandfather’s motion to terminate the father’s parental rights; and (3) whether respondent failed to respond in a timely manner to the order of remand from the family court. The Board’s sanction order recognized respondent’s responsibility for undue delay and endemic court management issues, but also acknowledged that the choices and actions of others played a significant role in the overall duration of the underlying case. It took into account respondent’s forthrightness in his dealings with the Board, his good intentions toward the parties, the reasonableness of his rulings in the underlying case, and his willingness to accept conditions intended to prevent this type of problem from recurring. The Supreme Court saw no reason to set aside the recommended conditions of respondent's sanctions. The Court did conclude, however, that characterization of respondent’s reprimand as “private,” rather than “public,” despite the conceded public character of the reprimand, was confusing and "cannot stand." Accordingly, the Court amended the sanction to characterize it as a “public reprimand.” In all other respects, the Court affirmed the Board’s sanction for respondent’s violation of Canon 3(B)(8). View "In re Balivet" on Justia Law

Marie Reed appeared before Judge Clark as a plaintiff in "Reed v. East Baton Rouge Sheriff Dept." Specifically, the Formal Charge at issue centers on a colloquy which took place in open court between Judge Clark and Ms. Reed while Ms. Reed’s lawyer was absent and on Judge Clark’s order dismissing Ms. Reed’s suit without prejudice after Ms. Reed was unable to prove her eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis. Ms. Reed had an unusual history of continuing to act many times as her own lawyer, even after she hired counsel. The Supreme Court found that because Judge Clark had signed an order dismissing Ms. Reed’s case without prejudice on April 18, 2011, the brief exchange she had with Ms. Reed on April 19th was of no substantive moment. Judge Clark testified, as the written order confirmed, that she denied the motion to stay and dismissed the case without prejudice the prior day. She took the bench only to announce her ruling on the record (an oral entry which would have been made even if no one associated with the case had been present that morning). The Court was "fully persuaded" that nothing with which the Commission charged Judge Clark warranted the Court’s sanction for judicial misconduct.View "In re Hon. Janice Clark" on Justia Law

In 2010, Monica Williams was shot and killed at an apartment complex managed by Appellees UFRA-Sexton, LP and Signature Management Corporation ("UFRA-Sexton"). Appellant Belinda Hodge was Williams' sister. Kristi Bussey had known Hodge for approximately ten years prior to Williams' death. Hodge retained attorney Craig Brookes of the law firm Hanks Brookes, LLC to pursue claims associated with the death of Williams. Bussey worked as a paralegal at Hanks Brookes. Bussey communicated regularly with Hodge about Hanks Brookes' investigation of the case, counsel's thoughts about the case, legal work being performed, and strategy for moving forward. UFRA-Sexton's insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, retained the firm of Insley & Race, LLC to represent UFRA-Sexton in the Williams matter. Bussey left her position as a paralegal with Hanks Brookes and began working as a legal assistant at another law firm. In early 2011, Bussey applied for a paralegal position at Insley & Race. Brynda Insley personally called, and obtained a reference from Hanks Brookes. Hanks never disclosed any possible conflict with regard to Bussey or Hanks Brookes' work on the Williams case. Hanks was unaware that UFRA-Sexton was represented by Insley & Race in the Williams case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that a conflict of interest involving a nonlawyer could be remedied by implementing proper screening measures in order to avoid disqualification of the entire law firm. The Court held that a nonlawyer's conflict of interest could be remedied by implementing proper screening measures so as to avoid disqualification of an entire law firm. In this case, the Court found that the screening measures implemented by the nonlawyer's new law firm were effective and appropriate to protect against the nonlawyer's disclosure of confidential information. However, the case was remanded back to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the new law firm promptly disclosed the conflict.View "Hodge v. Ufra-Sexton, LP" on Justia Law

In 2010, the State retained Covington & Burling, LLP (“Covington”) to represent it in a natural resource damages case against 3M Company (“3M”) involving the manufacture and disposal of perfluorochemicals, which are a subset of all fluorochemicals. In 2012, 3M moved to disqualify Covington as counsel for the State because Covington had previously represented 3M in legal and regulatory matters related to 3M’s fluorochemicals business from 1992 to 2006. The district court granted 3M’s disqualification motion. Both the State and Covington appealed. The court of appeals dismissed Covington’s appeal for lack of standing and affirmed the disqualification of Covington. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) an attorney has standing to appeal when a district court finds that the attorney violated the rules of professional conduct and disqualifies the attorney from the representation, and therefore, Covington had standing to appeal the disqualification order; (2) the district failed to use the proper legal standard in disqualifying Covington under Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(a); and (3) remand was required to permit the district court to make the necessary factual findings and determine whether 3M waived the right to seek disqualification of Covington.View "State v. 3M Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in his underlying criminal case because his lawyers induced him to reject a plea bargain for a much lower sentence "by misrepresenting the potential maximum sentencing exposure petitioner was facing at trial." The superior court appointed a lawyer from the Prisoners’ Rights Office of the Defender General to represent petitioner in that court. The appointed public defender accepted representation and proceeded to represent petitioner throughout the trial court proceeding. The State moved to dismiss the petition under 13 V.S.A. 7134 because it was "a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner." The public defender answered that the case did not fit within the statute because the theory on which this petition was based had not been raised in earlier PCR petitions because it was not available at the time of the earlier petitions. The superior court granted summary judgment for the State. Shortly thereafter, the public defender filed a notice of appeal on petitioner’s behalf. In a letter to petitioner, the public defender said she initially thought there were no grounds for appeal, but then said "I changed my opinion and filed a notice of appeal for you." She added, however, that since filing the notice of appeal she discovered the Defender General’s office had a conflict of interest so the case had been assigned to conflict counsel. The first assigned conflict counsel withdrew because her firm had done a merits review for the Defender General on petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in connection with a prior PCR action. Counsel concluded that the firm’s prior negative merits review created a conflict of interest. The case was then assigned to attorney Michael Rose. Attorney Rose filed a motion for leave to withdraw, citing Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 and case law. Because it became clear during the argument on that motion that the Defender General had not gone through the procedure it typically goes through before seeking leave to withdraw on the basis cited by Attorney Rose, the Supreme Court invited the Defender General to present its position on the motion. Upon further review, the Supreme Court granted Attorney Rose’s motion for leave to withdraw, and it did not appoint new publicly funded counsel. View "In re Bruyette." on Justia Law