Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Trudeau’s fraud conviction and his $38 million civil contempt judgment after he refused to surrender profits made from violating Federal Trade Commission orders. Trudeau claimed to be destitute. The FTC demanded that firms thought to be affiliated with Trudeau turn over business records. One such entity, Website Solutions, hired the Law Firms to represent it in connection with the demand. The district judge concluded that Website was under Trudeau’s control and appointed a receiver to marshal assets of Website and Trudeau’s other entities. The receiver collected approximately $8 million. The court approved the receiver’s plan, rejected the Firms’ request for compensation from funds in the receiver’s custody, approved the receiver’s compensation, accepted the final report, and authorized the receiver to send remaining funds to the FTC, closing the receivership. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Firms’ fees should be paid ahead of compensation for Trudeau’s victims. Before the Firms were hired by Website, a federal court had already directed Trudeau to turn over all proceeds of his improper commercial activities. That order created a lien on Website’s assets, senior to any claim created later. As a proxy for Trudeau, Website had no right to make commitments to pay third parties with funds belonging to Trudeau’s victims. View "Federal Trade Commission v. Trudeau" on Justia Law

The ACLU submitted a request under the California Public Records Act (PRA) to the Los Angeles County Counsel seeking invoices specifying the amounts that the County and been billed by any law firm in connection with several different lawsuits alleging excessive force against jail inmates. The County refused to provide invoices for the lawsuits that were still pending on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The ACLU petitioned for writ of mandate seeking to compel the County to disclose the requested records. The superior court granted the petition, concluding that the County had failed to show that the invoices were attorney-client privileged communications. The County then filed a petition for writ of mandate. The court of appeal granted the petition and vacated the superior court’s order, concluding that the invoices were confidential communications within the meaning of Cal. Evid. Code 952. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the attorney-client privilege does not categorically shield everything in a billing invoice from PRA disclosure, but invoices for work in pending and active legal matters implicate the attorney-client privilege; and (2) therefore, the privilege protects the confidentiality of invoices for work in pending and active legal matters. View "Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County" on Justia Law

Dr. Hoang, a dentist, died in 2010. Dr. Khan agreed to buy Hoang’s practice. The contract allows the prevailing party to be awarded fees if “any litigation . . . is commenced . . . concerning its terms, interpretation or enforcement or the rights and duties of any party.” Two years later, Khan filed suit for breach of contract, fraud, concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission. Khan alleged failure to comply with warranties, including that none of the practice records contained any untrue statement or material omission; that the practice was in compliance with laws and regulations; that patients and insurance companies had been properly billed; that the practice had not billed for services for which the practice was not entitled to compensation; that the practice had not, as a usual practice, waived co-payments or deductibles; and the practice had not increased any employee’s salary after April 2010. The estate counter claimed that Khan had failed to remit accounts receivable and to provide proper accounting. Before trial, Khan voluntarily dismissed her entire complaint without prejudice. The court found for Khan on all causes of action in the counter-complaint. The estate obtained an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4). The court of appeal remanded. Section 1717(b)(2), generally bars the award of fees after a pretrial voluntary dismissal for defense of contract claims, but the agreement's fee provision was broad enough to cover fees for defense against tort actions. View "Khan v. Shim" on Justia Law

After the district court awarded BancorpSouth nearly $1 million in attorneys’ fees under state law, or, in the alternative, under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., Spear Marketing appealed. Spear Marketing argued that the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees under state law because its state law claim was preempted and erred in alternatively awarding attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act because it never pleaded or litigated a copyright claim. The court concluded that the district court did not err in awarding attorneys' fees under the state law because no court has ever held the state law claim to be preempted. View "Spear Marketing v. BancorpSouth Bank" on Justia Law

The Judicial Standards Commission (JSC) imposed a public reprimand on Judge Jerry R. Tillett (Defendant), a judge in Judicial District One of the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for misconduct while in public office. Defendant accepted the reprimand, and the JSC’s official filing constituted the Commission’s final action on the matter. Two years after Defendant accepted the reprimand, the State Bar commenced a disciplinary action against Defendant by filing a complaint with the North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission (DHC). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The DHC denied the motion to dismiss, arguing that the DHC infringes upon the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction by initiating attorney disciplinary proceedings against a sitting member of the General Court of Justice for conduct while in office. The Supreme Court reversed the DHC’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the DHC lacks the authority to investigate and discipline Defendant for his conduct while in office. View "North Carolina State Bar v. Tillett" on Justia Law

In 2008, West Bend filed a legal malpractice action based on the performance of attorney Schumacher and his firm, RLGZ, in a 2005-2006 workers’ compensation matter. The parties agreed to a dismissal of that claim and entered into a tolling agreement pending the resolution of related actions. After the resolution of those claims, West Bend filed a malpractice suit against Schumacher in 2013. The district court dismissed the first and an amended complaint, concluding that the allegations were too speculative or vague. The court stated that allegations about failure to depose a doctor, failure to contact witnesses prior to the hearing, the disclosure of certain facts to opposing counsel, and that Schumacher had represented that West Bend would accept liability, did not explain “how any of these alleged acts and omissions harmed its defense.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The complaint did not adequately plead a claim for legal malpractice under Illinois law; it fails to allege plausibly that the outcome of the underlying action would have been more favorable to West Bend, had it not been for Schumacher’s alleged litigation conduct View "West Bend Mutual Insurance Co v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

The parties married in 1992 and divorced in 2005. During their ongoing “litigation war” the court granted husband Family Code section 2711 sanctions of $767,781.23, including: $500,000 for wife’s “relentless and culpable conduct” in “driv[ing] up the cost of the litigation” and “purposefully frustrat[ing]" the settlement; $180,000 for causing a reduction in the sale price of property awarded to husband in the dissolution judgment; and $45,000 in interest on husband’s attorney fees. The court also awarded husband $28,510 in rents and security deposits that wife received on properties awarded to husband in the dissolution judgment. The court of appeal reversed in part. Section 271 sanctions are limited to “attorney’s fees and costs” so the court erred by imposing sanctions for conduct in increasing the cost of the litigation and frustrating settlement and for causing a reduction in the sale price of real property. The court otherwise affirmed, rejecting wife’s arguments that the court erred by granting the rents motion; the court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101) by denying her requests for accommodation and holding a motion hearing in her absence; and that husband was not entitled to attorney fees because he used the services of an attorney who previously represented wife. View "Sagonowsky v. Kekoa" on Justia Law

Debtor was unable to pay $70,000 attorney fees accrued over several years. The attorney continued to provide legal services. In May 2008, Debtor gave the attorney possession of the titles to a 1954 MG and a 1977 Ferrari as security. There was no written security agreement. When a bank began putting pressure on Debtor, she turned over possession of the vehicles in 2012. Debtor did not sign over the titles or complete assignment of ownership forms until six days before Debtor’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. The vehicles were not in working order. The attorney had some repairs done and sold the vehicles to a third party for $40,000 in November 2013. Eight months later, the Chapter 7 trustee filed an adversary complaint, 11 U.S.C. 547(b). The bankruptcy court concluded that the attorney did not have a valid or perfected attorney lien under Ohio law and that the transfer occurred within the look-back period for avoidance. The bankruptcy court granted the trustee judgment for $32,000, plus prejudgment interest. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed, upholding the determination of value. The transfer was preferential; the bankruptcy court found unsecured creditors would receive no distribution, so the attorney received more than he would have in the Chapter 7. View "In re: Hadley" on Justia Law

The City of Chicago obtained a default administrative judgment of $3,540 against Plaintiff (Manistee Apartments), based upon a finding of code violations. The city registered the judgment and imposed a lien against plaintiff’s real estate. Plaintiff contends that it first received actual notice of the lien during routine title insurance review while it was preparing to sell its properties. In response to plaintiff’s effort to settle the matter, the city demanded $5,655.16, reflecting $720.34 in statutory interest plus $1,394.82 in collection costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff conveyed its property, paid $5,655.16 under protest, and filed a federal class action, alleging due process violations. The court dismissed, stating that the plaintiff failed to allege facts that plausibly supported the assertion that it paid the demand under duress; because its payment was voluntary, plaintiff was not deprived of a constitutionally-protected property interest under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the claim was more appropriate for small claims court and questioning: why would such a small amount cause the plaintiff to exert so much time and effort? The court stated that it suspected that only lawyers stood to benefit. View "Manistee Apartments, LLC v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Foreman alleged that Rockford police officers came to his restaurant because the man living in an upstairs apartment accused Foreman of cutting off his electricity. Foreman refused to answer questions and was arrested. Prosecutor Leisten charged Foreman with obstructing a police officer. The charge was dismissed. The court ordered Foreman to show cause why claims against Leisten should not be dismissed; the prosecutor would have absolute immunity in her individual capacity and the Eleventh Amendment bars official capacity claims. In a previous case Foreman’s lawyer, Redmond, had raised similar claims against prosecutors that were dismissed, so the court ordered Redmond to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. The court granted Leisten judgment on the pleadings, noting that Foreman had not offered a basis for challenging the existing law of prosecutorial immunity and that the official capacity claim would not fall under the Eleventh Amendment's exception for injunctive relief because Foreman’s complaint did not allege an ongoing constitutional violation. The court censured Redmond, stating that he did not argue for a change in the law until after he was faced with a recommendation of censure. The court dismissed 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against the officers, concluding that they had probable cause to arrest Foreman. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, citing Supreme Court precedent that state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suits under section 1983 for activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” View "Foreman v. Wadsworth" on Justia Law