Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Joe Encinias and his parents hired defendants Russell Whitener ad the Whitener Law Firm to represent plaintiff in a possible suit against the Robertson High School and the Las Vegas School District after he was badly beaten by a classmate at the school two years earlier. Plaintiff called the firm out of concern on the applicable statute of limitations on his case. In fact, the statute had run by that time. A Whitener attorney testified that he and his colleagues had been aware of the statute of limitations, but allowed it to run because they were concerned about the strength of plaintiff's case. In 2007, Whitener realized the case was barred; in early 2008, the firm decided not to pursue the suit. Whitener waited until the spring of 2008 to tell plaintiff and his family that it had missed the statute of limitations. Later that fall, plaintiff sued the firm for malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the firm. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in its grant of summary judgment, finding genuine issues of fact remained with regard to plaintiff's case. View "Encinias v. Whitener Law Firm" on Justia Law

After the court concluded that respondent litigated in bad faith and that this matter was unnecessarily prolonged due to petitioners' ambiguously-drafted Petition to Quiet Title, the court directed petitioners to submit a statement of reasonable attorney fees which they believed reflected the cost imposed on them by respondent's purely vexatious legal maneuvers. Petitioners submitted an affidavit for attorney fees but respondent failed to respond. Thus, respondent waived any objection to the statement of fees. The court awarded petitioners $1,250.00 in attorneys' fees under the bad faith exception to the American Rule, to be paid by respondent within thirty days from the date this matter becomes final.View "Branson, et al. v. Branson" on Justia Law

Trusts that owned fifty percent of the common stock of nominal defendant IMS alleged that two of the company's three most senior officers mismanaged the company in breach of their fiduciary duties. Trusts moved to compel IMS to produce the senior officers' work email accounts. The senior officers asserted the attorney-client privilege but did not invoke the work product doctrine. The court concluded that the In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. factors weighed in favor of production, absent a statutory override that could alter the common law result. Because IMS conducted its business in Maryland, the federal government and the State of Maryland were the sovereigns whose laws IMS must follow when dealing with its employees' email. The Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.; the Federal Store Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701; the Maryland Wiretap Act, Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-401 to 10-414; and the Maryland Stored Communications Act, Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-4A-01 to 10-4A-08, did not change the common law privilege analysis. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to compel.View "In re Info. Mgmt. Servs., Inc. Derivative Litigation" on Justia Law

Snyder, admitted to the bar in 1996, allegedly committed 18 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including charging excessive and nonrefundable fees. Snyder operated SPLS, a foreclosure-defense firm with “of counsel” relationships with out-of-state attorneys. Snyder shared office space with PIC, a business that provided paralegal and support services for Snyder, including interacting with clients on the phone, compiling information, and contacting lenders regarding mitigation options. PIC contracted with a marketing firm that attracted potential clients by sending solicitation letters to homeowners who were behind in mortgage payments. Snyder would enter into an agreement with the client that provided for a flat fee that was deemed earned in full upon the opening of the file. The cost of representation ranged from $1,595 to $2,295; $200 to $500 would be sent to the attorney outside of Ohio who was listed as “of counsel.” Snyder retained $300 for each client, with the balance going to PIC for its services. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline concluded that three violations had been proven and recommended dismissal of the others. The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation of a public reprimand. No objections were filed. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed.View "Geauga Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Snyder" on Justia Law

In 2006, a jury convicted Appenzeller on18 felony counts. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 28 years in prison. The appeals court affirmed in part and remanded for merging of certain offenses and resentencing. The trial court again imposed a sentence of an aggregate term of 28 years in prison. The appeals court affirmed. Appenzeller unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief based primarily on a claim that he was denied due process and equal protection when there was a break in the chain of custody of the trial transcript in his direct appeal. The alleged break occurred when Appenzeller’s own appellate attorney checked out the transcript to prepare his brief. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no violation of court rules or of constitutional rights.View "Appenzeller v. Miller" on Justia Law

Canton attorney Oberholtzer, admitted to the bar in 1989, was charged with client neglect in two family-law matters in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.15(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). Oberholtzer was nonresponsive and failed to cooperate in the investigation of both matters. After a hearing, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended dismissing a charged trust-account violation, but otherwise found violations and recommended suspension from the practice of law for 12 months, with the entire suspension if Oberholtzer fully cooperates with a monitoring attorney, appointed by disciplinary counsel, for the entire period of suspension, and completes a three-hour continuing-legal-education course on law-office management. Neither party filed objections. The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the recommendation.View "Disciplinary Counsel v. Oberholtzer" on Justia Law

Taubman, admitted to the Ohio bar in 1976, admitted to professional misconduct for negligently withdrawing settlement proceeds held in a client guardianship account for his personal use in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 8.4(h). The parties stipulated that no aggravating factors existed and to the absence of a prior disciplinary record, a timely good-faith effort to rectify the misconduct, full and free disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and Taubman’s good character or reputation. The parties agreed that a stayed six-month suspension was the appropriate sanction; the board recommended adoption of the consent-to-discipline agreement. The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the agreement.View "Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman" on Justia Law