Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The City of Boston, along with its Public Health Commission and Housing Authority, brought suit against two pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), OptumRx and Express Scripts, alleging that the PBMs had worked with opioid manufacturers to misrepresent the risks of opioid drugs. The City claimed that this conduct violated Massachusetts public nuisance law and resulted in harm to the City. The PBMs removed the case to federal court and argued that the suit was untimely because it was brought after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. The City responded by asserting that its complaint sufficiently alleged a continuing nuisance and that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the PBMs’ fraudulent concealment of their wrongdoing.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the PBMs’ motion to dismiss, finding that the City either knew or should have known of its injuries and of the PBMs’ alleged role before 2021, based on public records and prior litigation, and thus failed to file suit within the statutory period. The district court further ruled that the City had not adequately pled a continuing nuisance, as it did not allege any specific, recent unlawful acts within the limitations period, and rejected the City’s claim of fraudulent concealment, determining that the City had the means to discover the facts needed for its claim. The district court also denied a motion by the PBMs to disqualify the City's law firm, Motley Rice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed both the dismissal of the City’s state law claim and the denial of the motion to disqualify Motley Rice. The court held that the action was time-barred and that the City had not met the requirements for tolling the statute of limitations or for pleading a continuing nuisance under Massachusetts law. View "The City of Boston v. OptumRx, Inc." on Justia Law

A medical device company that manufactures spinal devices was indicted, along with its CEO and CFO, for allegedly paying bribes to surgeons through a sham consulting program in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The indictment claimed the surgeons did not provide bona fide consulting services, but were paid to use and order the company’s devices in surgeries covered by federal health care programs. The company’s CFO, who is not a shareholder but is one of only two officers, allegedly calculated these payments based on the volume and value of surgeries performed with the company’s devices. During the development of the consulting program, the company retained outside counsel to provide legal opinions on the agreements’ compliance with health care law, and those opinions were distributed to the surgeons.After the grand jury returned the indictment, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts addressed whether the CFO’s plan to argue at trial that the involvement of outside counsel negated his criminal intent would effect an implied waiver of the company’s attorney-client privilege. The district court initially found that if the CFO or CEO invoked an “involvement-of-counsel” defense, it would waive the corporation’s privilege over communications with counsel. Following dismissal of charges against the company, the district court focused on whether the officers collectively could waive the privilege, concluded they could, and ruled that the CFO’s planned defense would constitute an implied waiver, allowing disclosure of certain privileged communications to the government. The district court stayed its order pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s waiver order and remanded. The Court of Appeals held that (1) the record was insufficient to determine whether the CFO alone had authority to waive the company’s privilege, and (2) not every involvement-of-counsel defense necessitates a waiver. The appellate court directed the district court to reassess the issue in light of changed circumstances and to consider less intrusive remedies before finding an implied waiver. View "United States v. SpineFrontier, Inc." on Justia Law

A Russian citizen, Diana Avdeeva, married a U.S. citizen and applied for lawful permanent-resident status, which was granted on a conditional basis. She and her husband later filed a petition to remove the conditional status, but USCIS did not act on it within the required timeframe. After their divorce, Avdeeva requested the petition be converted to a waiver petition. She then applied for naturalization, but USCIS denied her petition, terminated her permanent-resident status, and placed her in removal proceedings. Avdeeva sued USCIS for failing to adjudicate her naturalization application within the statutory period.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts remanded the case to USCIS based on a settlement agreement, which required USCIS to terminate removal proceedings, approve her petition, and conduct a new naturalization interview. Avdeeva was naturalized, and she dismissed her other lawsuit. She then sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), but the district court denied her motion, suggesting she was not a "prevailing party" and that awarding fees would be unjust due to the settlement terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Avdeeva was not a "prevailing party" under EAJA because the change in her legal status was not "court-ordered" but rather a result of the settlement agreement. The court noted that the district court's remand order did not resolve the merits of the case or retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, thus lacking the necessary judicial imprimatur. Consequently, Avdeeva was not entitled to attorney's fees. View "Avdeeva v. Tucker" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, a local attorney, was contracted by Theory Wellness, a marijuana dispensary operator, to assist in obtaining a host community agreement from the City of Medford, Massachusetts. Instead of legitimate lobbying, the defendant attempted to bribe Medford's chief of police through the chief's brother. This led to the defendant's convictions on two counts of honest-services wire fraud and one count of federal programs bribery.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over the trial, where a jury convicted the defendant on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to concurrent twenty-four-month terms of imprisonment. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain testimony, and the jury instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the honest-services wire fraud convictions, finding that the district court erroneously admitted the only evidence establishing the jurisdictional element of those counts. However, the court affirmed the federal programs bribery conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant intended to bribe the chief of police.The court held that the defendant's actions constituted a bribery scheme under 18 U.S.C. § 666, even if the defendant did not believe the chief had accepted the bribe. The court also found that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on the requirement of an "official act" was harmless, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the defendant sought official acts from the chief. The court rejected the defendant's entrapment defense, finding no improper inducement by the government and that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. View "United States v. O'Donovan" on Justia Law

Appellant, an experienced bankruptcy attorney, represented Debtor, who sought relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. During the proceedings, Appellant engaged in conduct that caused the bankruptcy court to order Appellant to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(b)(2). The bankruptcy court subsequently found that Appellant twice described the applicable law in a manner that it deemed to be misleading and imposed a sanction in the form of a non-monetary penalty. The First Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order imposing a sanction on Appellant, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in construing Appellant’s submissions as sufficiently misleading so as to warrant a sanction. View "Baker v. Harrington" on Justia Law