Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Robert Mack, a beneficiary of his parents' estates, contested the distribution of assets from his mother’s will and his father’s testamentary trust. After his parents passed away, his brothers Hugh and Eric, acting as co-personal representatives and co-trustees, filed a petition for distribution to Robert. The circuit court approved the distribution after Robert’s attorney did not object at the hearing. Robert later obtained new counsel and filed a motion for relief from the order of distribution, claiming his previous attorney did not inform him of the hearing or the proposed distribution.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, denied Robert’s motion for relief under SDCL 15-6-60(b). The court found Robert’s claim that he had no communication with his attorney since late 2022 not credible, based on his previous conduct in court proceedings. The court also concluded that the order of distribution was fair and equitable, despite Robert’s request for an evidentiary hearing to contest the valuation of the estate assets.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and found that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Robert’s motion for relief. The Supreme Court noted that Robert’s affidavit, which stated he had no knowledge of the hearing or the proposed distribution, was unrefuted. Additionally, the court highlighted the pending disciplinary proceedings against Robert’s former attorney, which raised concerns about the attorney’s ability to practice law. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case with directions to grant the motion for relief from the order of distribution and to set an evidentiary hearing on the petition for distribution. View "In the Matter of the Estate Of Mack" on Justia Law

In South Dakota, defendant Tashina Abraham-Medved was charged with unauthorized ingestion of a controlled substance. After pleading guilty, her attorney requested to withdraw from the case due to a "serious breakdown of communication" between him and Abraham-Medved. The circuit court denied the request, arguing that as the case was set for sentencing there was little communication left to do.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota found that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to withdraw without allowing Abraham-Medved or her attorney an opportunity to establish good cause for the request. The court held that when there is a request for substitute counsel, the circuit court must at least inquire about the reasons for such requests. By failing to do so, the court abused its discretion.Furthermore, the court found that the defendant was prejudiced by this decision as her attorney did not present any sentencing recommendation or argument. Instead, Abraham-Medved spoke on her own behalf. Given the lack of engagement from the attorney, the court found there was a reasonable probability that a different sentence might have been imposed had the attorney properly advocated on Abraham-Medved's behalf.As a result, the court reversed Abraham-Medved’s sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing. View "State V. Abraham-Medved" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of South Dakota, the defendant, Matthew Allan Carter, was convicted of first-degree rape of a minor. The victim, referred to as E.W., was the five-year-old daughter of Carter's then-girlfriend, Nycole Morkve. E.W. disclosed to her mother and grandmother that Carter, known as “Daddy Matt," had “licked” her “lady parts.” Medical examination revealed that E.W. had gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted infection, and a subsequent test showed that Carter also had gonorrhea. Additionally, a search of Carter's residence uncovered a hard drive containing videos of child pornography.On appeal, Carter argued that the trial court erred in its rulings related to evidence, his motion for acquittal, and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed these issues and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to view brief clips of the child pornography videos found on Carter's hard drive, as they were relevant to proving Carter's intent and motive. The court also found that the trial court did not err in admitting E.W.'s statements about the abuse, as they were reliable and corroborated by other evidence. Additionally, the court held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Carter orally penetrated E.W. Finally, the court declined to address Carter's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as the record on that issue was not sufficiently developed.The court, therefore, affirmed Carter's conviction for first-degree rape. View "State V. Carter" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Manegabe Chebea Ally, was convicted of first-degree manslaughter for the death of a 16-month-old child. He was sentenced to a 45-year prison term with 20 years suspended. Following his conviction, Ally appealed, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. After a series of evidentiary hearings, the habeas court granted him relief, determining that his counsel was indeed ineffective and that the cumulative effect of these deficiencies prejudiced his defense. The habeas court determined that Ally's right to a fair trial was violated.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, however, reversed the decision of the habeas court. The Supreme Court found that while Ally's counsel's opening statement included an imprecise remark, this mistake did not undermine the adversarial process or deprive Ally of a fair trial. The Court also found that Ally's defense counsel made a reasonably strategic decision to exclude parts of Ally's three interviews with a detective and to not elicit additional testimony from a medical expert. Although the Court acknowledged that the defense counsel's failure to disclose a certain video to the prosecutor deviated from prevailing professional norms, it did not result in significant prejudice to Ally. The Court therefore concluded that Ally did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at his 2012 trial, and the decision of the habeas court was reversed. View "Ally V. Young" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Jeffrey Cole, William Sims, and Gregory Brewers (collectively, the Attorneys) arising out the Attorneys' representation of Doug and Dawn Barr in a personal injury action, holding that the circuit court did not err.The Barrs, husband and wife, were involved in a motor vehicle accident with Stuart Hughes. The Attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Barrs against Hughes. Following the settlement of their personal injury claims, the Barrs sued the Attorneys for legal malpractice and related claims, challenging the Attorneys' alleged failure to pursue a claim for damages against the State for Hughes's negligence and the Attorneys' failure to inform them of their claim before they agreed to settle. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Attorneys. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly granted because the Barrs could not have asserted a claim against the State in their underlying negligence action, and the Attorneys were not negligent for failing to pursue one. View "Barr v. Cole" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision awarding attorney’s fees assessed against opposing counsel for costs Defendant incurred in bringing a successful motion to disqualify opposing counsel for an alleged violation of the South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. The circuit court reasoned that sanctions were appropriate because the motion to disqualify was “other litigation” resulting from counsel’s alleged ethical violation. In reversing, the circuit court held (1) counsel’s alleged violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct did not result in “other litigation” comprehended by either Jacobsen v. Leisinger, 746 N.W.2d 739, or the precedent on which it relied; and (2) the procedural requirements for S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-11(c) (Rule 11) sanctions were not met. View "Berggren v. Schonebaum" on Justia Law

Thomas Konrad accepted a loan from Bob Law upon the advice of attorney Douglas Kettering. Law and Kettering had been partners in at least one of Law's business ventures and had an attorney-client relationship. Thomas's parents (the Konrads) provided their land as collateral for Thomas's loan. Thomas later defaulted on the note. Seven months after Kettering passed away, Law brought suit to enforce the note and mortgage against Thomas and the Konrads. Law settled with Thomas and the Konrads. Law then sought to recover from the Kettering Estate the amounts outstanding on the note, claiming that Kettering's acts - including his conflict of interest with Law and his alleged fraudulent inducement of the Konrads into signing the note and mortgage - voided the note and mortgage, and therefore, the Estate was liable to Law for the interest due on the note. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the contract between Law and Thomas did not contravene public policy because it was drafted by an attorney who failed to disclose a conflicting attorney-client relationship; and (2) the theory that Kettering fraudulently induced the Konrads into signing the note and mortgage rested on mere speculation. View "Law Capital, Inc. v. Kettering" on Justia Law