Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs invested in oil-and-gas exploration companies and lost money when the companies’ wells produced little oil or gas. They sued the companies and their officers, claiming violations of state and federal law in selling unregistered securities and in making other material misrepresentations and omissions. They also sued Durham, the lawyer who represented the companies. Durham drafted the documents, including joint-venture agreements and private placement memoranda that provided details about the investment opportunity, and told prospective investors he was available to answer questions. Plaintiffs allege that Durham knew the documents contained material misrepresentations and omissions and that the securities were neither registered nor exempt from registration. District courts ruled in favor of Durham. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Kentucky Securities Act imposes liability on anyone who “offers or sells a security” in violation of its terms and any “agent” of the seller who “materially aids” the sale of securities, defined as someone who “effect[s] or attempt[s] to effect” the sale. Ky. Rev. Stat. 292.480(1),(4); 292.310(1). An attorney who performs ordinary legal work, such as drafting documents, giving advice and answering client questions, is not an “agent” under the Act. View "Bennett v. Durham" on Justia Law

Mitchell was a partner in the Cleveland law firm from the early 1980s until 2006. There was no formal partnership agreement; each partner practiced in a different area of law, and each represented his clients with essentially no oversight, but shared evenly in the firm's profits. Mitchell was indicted for his involvement in a long-running scheme to bribe the auditor of Cuyahoga County into awarding overvalued contracts for appraisal work to a company formed by his law partners. The indictment charged conspiracy to commit bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, 18 U.S.C. 371; bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2); and conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951. The district court granted Mitchell acquittal on the Hobbs Act charge, but a jury convicted him of the remaining two counts. He was sentenced to 97 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the jury instruction that deliberate ignorance, in some instances, can constitute knowledge, and a challenge to the sentence. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Defendants, two of three lawyers who represented several hundred Kentucky clients in a mass-tort action against the manufacturer of the defective diet drug "fen-phen," settled the case for $200 million, which entitled them under their retainer agreements to approximately $22 million each in attorney fees. By visiting clients and obtaining their signatures on "confidential settlements," for lesser amounts, the two actually disbursed slightly more than $45 million, less than 23 percent of the total settlement. The lawyers kept the remainder for themselves and associated counsel, transferring much of it from the escrow account to various other accounts, including out-of-state accounts. The scheme was discovered; the lawyers were disbarred and convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1349. One was sentenced to 240 months, the other to 300 months. They were ordered to pay more than $127 million in restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a variety of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and trial procedures. View "United States v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

Hardesty, a resident of Utah, solicited Schneider, a physician and resident of Ohio, for an investment involving purchase of medical-malpractice insurance from Hardesty's foreign-based company. The investment was to provide federal-tax benefits and make him a partial owner of an insurance company. Hardesty's $500,000 was transferred and eventually frozen because of SEC proceedings against a Ponzi scheme involving more than $100,000,000. Hardesty hired Nelson, a Utah attorney, to recover the funds. Nelson corresponded with Schneider and the defendants, but did not recover the money. Schneider sued multiple defendants, including Hardesty and Nelson, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. Schneider alleged that letters written by Nelson contained false statements by which Nelson furthered the scheme to defraud Schneider. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The district court improperly applied the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, as opposed to the prima facie standard, in determining whether Schneider pleaded facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Nelson, but the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process and is proper under Ohio's long-arm statute even under the more demanding standard. View "Schneider v. Hardesty" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Carol Metz and others filed a putative class action against fifty-five banks, including Fifth Third. The claims arose out of a Ponzi scheme involving bogus promissory notes. Five months later, attorney Daniel Morris filed a motion to intervene on behalf of his clients. Attached to the motion was a complaint similar to Metz's complaint except it was premised on promissory notes issued by different entities. The district court granted the motion to intervene. After the district court had dismissed Fifth Third with prejudice, Morris filed an intervenors' complaint against Fifth Third. The complaint was virtually identical to the complaint attached to the motion to intervene Morris filed earlier. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice and granted Fifth Third's request for sanctions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the imposition of sanctions, holding (1) the district court's imposition of sanctions under the bad faith standard was proper; (2) the record set forth sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision; (3) the district court properly sanctioned Morris under its inherent authority even though Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 also applied; (4) the district court did not deny Morris due process; and (5) the amount of fees awarded was not excessive.

Petitioner, convicted of a non-fatal shooting, was sentenced as a habitual offender to 29-1/2 to 60 years for assault with intent to commit murder, to run concurrently with a sentence of 40 to 60 months for a felon-in-possession conviction, and a consecutive term of two years for a felony firearm conviction. He claims that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because his attorney fell asleep while he was being cross-examined. Michigan state courts rejected appeals. The district court denied habeas relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. At most, the attorney was asleep for part of a single cross-examination; a petitioner must show that his attorney slept through a substantial portion of the trial for the "Cronic" presumption of prejudice to attach. Noting the overwhelming evidence, the court stated that petition did not show a reasonable probability that counsel could have prevented prejudicial events from occurring had he been awake, much less that it would have affected the outcome of the trial. Although the attorney was later arrested for cocaine use, there was no evidence that he was using cocaine during the trial..

Defendant, convicted under 18 U.S.C. 371 of conspiracy to defraud the United States while serving as in-house general counsel to the company involving the company's filing of false tax returns with the IRS. He was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution to the IRS. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The jury instructions adequately addressed the elements of conspiracy. There was no need for mention of the attorney-client privilege or of an attorney's potential obligation to report illegal activity. The government’s theory of liability was not dependent on whether defendant had an affirmative duty to inform, yet failed to do so; conviction did not turn on whether defendant's actions were governed by the attorney-client privilege. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Petitioner was convicted of drug and firearm offenses in Michigan state court based on her presence in a house where the drugs were found. She did not own the house and claimed that she did not know the drugs were there. Her lawyer, high on cocaine for much of the time he represented her, never interviewed any of the other people in the house or called them as witnesses. The district court rejected a habeas corpus petition as untimely. The Sixth Circuit remanded. The one-year limitations period on habeas applications by state prisoners, 28 U.S.C. 2244, includes an exception: when a prisoner files an original petition within the one-year deadline, and later presents new claims in an amended petition filed after the deadline passes, the new claims relate back to the date of the original petition if the new claims share a common core of operative facts. Petitioner failed to present the claim in state court and, therefore, has not exhausted remedies, and the district court must decide whether to hold the claim in abeyance.

Plaintiff filed several suits against healthcare groups on behalf of the United States, claiming violation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b). No court has ever found that the MSP is a qui tam statute, permitting private attorneys general to sue on behalf of the United States. The Sixth Circuit found plaintiff was on notice of the frivolous nature of his filings from their inception in the Tennessee district courts and remanded for a show-cause hearing on why sanctions should not issue. The district court awarded sanctions to two defendants in amounts of $131,158.50 and $145,431.19. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but denied an award for the appeal.

Plaintiff, an attorney who handled Chapter 11 proceedings for a client, submitted a petition for fees after the case was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. The bankruptcy court denied the petition because of the attorney's failure to comply with disclosure rules, abusive conduct toward others involved in the case, excessive or incomplete billing, and disruptive behavior. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting the attorney's "flagrant" disregard of deadlines and the rules for appeal.