Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance issued a Formal Complaint against Chancellor David Shoemake, alleging judicial misconduct. The Complaint contained allegations that Judge Shoemake had contributed to the mismanagement of the conservatorship of Victoria Denise Newsome. After a formal hearing on March 12, 2015, the Commission recommended to the Supreme Court that Judge Shoemake be removed from office, fined $2,500, and assessed costs in the amount of $5,882.67. Judge Shoemake disputes the Commission’s findings and recommendation. After review, the Supreme Court held that Judge Shoemake improperly signed ex parte orders and contributed to the mismanagement of a ward’s estate. However, the Commission did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Shoemake gave testimony that he knew or should have known would be misleading. The Court ordered that Judge Shoemake be publicly reprimanded, be suspended from office for thirty days without pay, pay a fine of $2,500, and pay costs in the amount of $5,882.67. View "Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Shoemake" on Justia Law

Bobby Gibson filed a legal-malpractice action against Joe Montgomery and his law firm, Williams, Williams and Montgomery, P.A. (“WWM”), alleging wrongful conduct in connection with the administration of his late wife Debbie's estate. The trial court granted summary judgment to Montgomery and WWM. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Bobby timely filed his Notice of Appeal and raised four issues: 1) whether the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel barred his claims, 2) whether judicial estoppel precluded his malpractice action, 3) whether the thirty-day period provided in Section 11-1-39 required dismissal, and 4) whether there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the elements of his legal-malpractice and fiduciary-duty claims. After review, the Supreme Court concluded: Bobby's claims were not precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel; judicial estoppel did not preclude Bobby's legal-malpractice action; there was no merit to Montgomery's Section 11-1-39 argument; and there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an attorney-client relationship existed. View "Gibson v. Williams, Williams & Montgomery, P.A." on Justia Law

Billy Bradley waited until 2014 to file suit against his court-appointed counsel from a 2004 proceeding. Bradley alleged negligence against his representative, Earl Jordan, which resulted in his injury (wrongful incarceration). Jordan filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the statute of limitations had run on any claims Bradley may have had as to Jordan’s negligence or professional malpractice. The trial court entered judgment in Jordan’s favor, finding that Bradley’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Bradley appealed. Finding that Bradley’s claims were time-barred, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Bradley v. Jordan" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Ike Thrash’s and Dawn Investments LLC’s claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Deutsch Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP (DKS). The dispute underlying this appeal arose over the purchase of land at a trustee sale. Joel Blackledge, the acting trustee, prepared a trustee's deed in favor of Dawn Investments. Thrash deposited $5.6 million dollars into the trust account of his attorney, Charliene Roemer. The trustee’s deed was then delivered to Dawn Investments, and Thrash authorized the transfer of the funds. The former owner of the property, Coastal Land Development Company, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Neither Thrash nor Blackledge was aware of the bankruptcy filing, but William Little Jr., Coastal’s bankruptcy attorney, notified Roemer through email. Subsequently, Thrash and Roemer discovered that the foreclosure sale had been conducted improperly. According to statute, the foreclosure sale must occur one week following the last day of publication; however, the foreclosure sale was conducted one day after the last day of publication. Thrash notified the seller of the error and demanded the funds be returned, but the request was refused. DKS filed suit in circuit court against Thrash, Dawn Investments, and the seller seeking a declaratory judgment that the failure of Blackledge to conduct a foreclosure sale properly was not the proximate cause of Thrash’s and Dawn Investments’ damages. Thrash and Dawn Investments counterclaimed, alleging that Blackledge was negligent and breached his fiduciary duty by improperly conducting the foreclosure sale, leading to Thrash and Dawn Investments to suffer damages. The parties agreed to dismiss DKS’s complaint for declaratory judgment and proceed under Thrash’s and Dawn Investments’ counterclaim. The parties were realigned, naming Thrash and Dawn Investments as Plaintiffs and DKS as Defendant. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted DKS’s motion. The Dawn Plaintiffs then filed this appeal. The Supreme Court found that the trial court was correct in finding that DKS did not owe the Dawn Plaintiffs a duty. View "Thrash v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP" on Justia Law