Candor
Facts: The government's prosecution of the defendant for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. They were convicted in 2020. But a motion for a new trial was granted because of the governments disclosure failures. During the trial, prosecutors were found to have intentionally withheld or "buried" exculpatory evidence from the defense, such as a letter from a bank that had exculpatory value. They also misrepresented facts to the court about their handling of this evidence.
What is United States v. Nejad?
Facts: Attorney made rude and crude comments towards opposing counsel during deposition of another case.
What is In the Matter of Monaghan?
Facts: An attorney admitted to practice in Ohio in 1977, represented M.S. in a civil matter beginning in February 2011. Approximately six months into the representation, Attorney commenced an intimate sexual relationship with M.S. The legal representation concluded in February 2012, but the intimate relationship continued until the fall of 2014. Attorney later represented M.S. in two additional civil matters, and their relationship remained friendly until 2016, when M.S. discharged him as her attorney.
What is Akron Bar Association v. Fortado?
Facts: A New York law firm, represented a California corporation in a dispute with Tandem Computers Incorporated. The fee agreement between the parties was executed in New York and stipulated that California law would govern all matters in the representation.The firm's attorneys, who were not licensed to practice law in California, traveled to California multiple times to meet with the corporation, its accountants, and Tandem representatives, providing legal advice and negotiating on the corporation's behalf. The firm also initiated arbitration proceedings in California but settled the dispute before arbitration occurred. The corporation later sued the firm for legal malpractice, and the firm counterclaimed for unpaid attorney fees.
What is Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. v. Superior Court?
Holding/Reasoning: The federal court has the authority here to authorize counsel “unwillingly” to indigent plaintiffs but it depends on 5 factors. The issue is Plaintiff's case was likely the marketability of his claim and the likelihood that his claim would not succeed.
What is Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co.?
Facts: Attorney was charged with ethical violations after persuading a former client to loan $5,000 to a different client involved in a purportedly lucrative but fraudulent Nigerian pipeline deal. Attorney had not verified the legitimacy of the Nigerian deal before asking for the loan.
What is Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Jones?
Facts: A lawyer who was representing a client when drugs and money went missing from an undercover operations’ safety deposit box. Two cops were also suspected but they were dropped as suspects. The lawyer then held a press conference stating that the client was innocent and was being framed. The client was acquitted.
What is The Gentile case?
Facts: Plaintiff's, sold and leased Caterpillar earthmoving equipment to Trumbull for a construction project in Florida. The equipment experienced breakdowns, causing delays and damages to Trumbull's project. Trumbull filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff and Caterpillar, alleging breach of warranties and misrepresentation, and sought damages exceeding $3 million. Defendants, Plaintiff's insurer, initially defended Plaintiff but later withdrew its defense, citing policy exclusions. Plaintiff settled the Trumbull lawsuit for $100,000 and incurred additional legal costs.
What is Beckwith Machinery Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co.?
Facts: The respondent, licensed to practice law in Colorado represented S.R., a teenager who impersonated her friend S.J. in a criminal trespass case. S.R. used S.J.'s identity during police interactions and court proceedings, resulting in a bench warrant being issued in S.J.'s name. The respondent falsely informed the Colorado Springs City Attorney's Office and the court that he represented S.J., not S.R., and obtained discovery and dismissal of the case under S.J.'s name. S.J. later contacted the respondent, who admitted that her name would remain on the criminal record and advised her to petition to seal it. S.J.'s stepfather reported the matter to the district attorney, leading to disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.
What is People v. Casey?
Reasoning: The court found that the attorney owed the client a fiduciary duty as her attorney, which he breached by failing to file the mortgage, failing to advise her to seek independent counsel, and failing to provide adequate legal advice regarding the loan transactions. The Attorney's confession of judgment on the promissory note did not preclude a finding of negligence, as the action was for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, not merely for recovery on the note. The court determined that the client suffered actual damages due to Attorney's negligence, as she lost her security interest and was left unsecured in the bankruptcy proceedings.
What is Phillips v. Carson?
Facts: A law school graduate, applied for admission to the North Carolina Bar by comity after previously being admitted to practice in New York and the District of Columbia. Between November 1991 and December 1996, the law school graduate co-owned and operated a restaurant, during which she claimed to have engaged in legal practice through various activities related to the business and for others. However, she did not maintain a separate law office, carry malpractice insurance, or report income from legal services on her tax returns. The North Carolina Board of Law Examiners denied her application, finding her claims of legal practice lacked candor and did not meet the requirement of active and substantial engagement in the practice of law.
What is In re Braun?
Holding/Reasoning: The Court reasoned that there was sufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action against the respondent despite the Special Referee's finding that the misconduct was more likely gender-related than race-related. The court considered the respondent's prior disciplinary history, including an admonition and a suspension, in determining the appropriate sanction. The court found the respondent's stipulation of misconduct and the evidence presented sufficient to reject the Special Referee's conclusion. Consequently, the court decided that censure was appropriate under the circumstances.
What is In the Matter of Monaghan?
Facts: Plaintiff retained attorney and his law firm to handle the estate of her deceased husband beginning in 1978. During the representation, Plaintiff paid $80,000 in fees, which she understood would cover all legal services until the estate was closed. In 1980 and 1981, Attorney, citing financial difficulties, borrowed $200,000 and $70,000 from Plaintiff, respectively, and provided promissory notes and mortgages as security. Attorney later persuaded Plaintiff to release her mortgage on Arizona property in exchange for a mortgage on his Wyandotte County property, which he failed to file. Plaintiff believed attorney was acting as her attorney throughout these transactions and relied on his advice.
What is Phillips v. Carson?
Facts: Judge refused a motion to recuse themself despite taking a hunting trip with Plaintiff while the case they were presiding over (challenging Plaintiff's energy task force) was pending, arguing their impartiality wasn't reasonably questioned and citing historical precedents.
What is Cheney v. U.S. District Court?
Reasoning: The court noted that trial courts have inherent powers to control proceedings and ensure the integrity of the judicial process, which includes the ability to revoke an attorney's pro hac vice status if the attorney's conduct would justify disqualification of a California attorney. The appellate court emphasized that revocation of pro hac vice status should be considered when the attorney's actions adversely impact the administration of justice.
What is Sheller v. Superior Court?
Facts: A patent lawyer was publicly reprimanded for forwarding an email from Chief Judge to clients. The email praised the attorney's oral advocacy skills and implied a special relationship with the judge. The attorney was found to have used the email to solicit business by implying he could improperly influence the court, which violated professional conduct rules.
What is In re Reines?
Facts: Attorney entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Attorney conceded that his actions constituted professional misconduct during his suit against the City for false arrest. Attorney deposed a Witness over the course of two days, asking a number of improper questions about his sexual orientation and HIV-testing.
What is In the Matter of Hammer?
Facts: Four related class actions were filed against Defendant, alleging violations of consumer protection laws, including kickbacks, overcharges, and improper fees. Plaintiffs' counsel disclosed confidential information to Gary Cohen during a 17-minute phone call in 2007, including attorney work product and case strategies. Cohen later declined to work with plaintiffs due to a potential conflict of interest. In 2009, Cohen joined the Sonnenschein law firm, which subsequently hired the defendant's defense team. The law firm implemented an ethical screen around Cohen after learning of his prior contact with plaintiffs' counsel. Cohen worked briefly on a separate case which was later cited in the related class actions, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the ethical screen.
What is Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Co.?
Facts: The Respondent employed a non-lawyer from 2001 until 2018, delegating extensive authority to her over office tasks, including client communication, banking, and electronic court filing. Respondent failed to maintain proper trust account records, which facilitated the non-lawyer's misconduct. Over several months in 2018, the non-lawyer stole thousands of dollars from the firm's operating account, over drafted the firm's trust account, and created fraudulent court orders and legal documents. This misconduct was significantly enabled by the respondent's inadequate supervision.
What is In the Matter of Lisher?
Reasoning: Plaintiff’s counsel could see the documents were privileged within a minute or two of reading them and admitted to that. Even after they continued to make copies and use those documents to depose the defendant’s witness instead of telling the defendant’s counsel. Even though it was not labeled as privileged the defendant’s counsel had his own thoughts and strategies on the notes which makes it Attorney Work Product. As for disqualification, it was the only viable way to save the case since the plaintiff’s counsel had distributed it to other lawyers and their expert witnesses. The damage was irreversible for those people and so new counsel and witnesses needed to step in.
What is Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation?
Facts: During the course of the litigation, the district court found that the defendant and his attorney had engaged in sanctionable misconduct, which included filing baseless motions. In October 1996, the district court ordered the attorney to pay approximately $100,000 in sanctions. The attorney refused to comply with the district court's order and told the court that he would not pay the sanctions. In response to the attorney's defiance, the district court held him in contempt of court and imposed a daily fine of $300 until he paid the original sanctions.
What is Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig?
Holding/Reasoning: The speech of attorneys involved in a criminal case may be more limited than that of the press at large if such limitation clearly gives notice to the ones it is intended to affect. The First Amendment rights to those participating in a criminal trial must be balanced against the defendant’s right to a fair trial. For this reason an attorney’s right to comment on a case he is involved in may be limited by the substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the impending trial.
What is The Gentile case?
Facts: Defendant was charged with attempt to commit first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and aggravated kidnapping. Defendant retained McDaniel as his defense counsel, who represented him during preliminary hearings, discovery, and trial preparation. McDaniel simultaneously served as a part-time prosecutor for the Town of Collierville and as an assistant district attorney for Shelby County, prosecuting state and municipal law violations. The Board of Professional Responsibility issued an advisory opinion stating that it was unethical for a part-time assistant district attorney to represent criminal defendants within the same judicial district.
What is State v. White?
Holding/Reasoning: The court found that the respondent engaged in a knowing course of conduct over an appreciable period, submitting false and material information to the court without remedial action. The respondent's claim of confusion between loyalty to his client and duty to the court was rejected.
What is People v. Casey?
Reasoning: Attorney-client privilege is meant to encourage open communication between clients and their attorneys and that this privilege can extend to observations made as a result of those communications. However, the court balanced this against the need for evidence to be available for discovery and use by the prosecution. In this case, the defense investigator's removal of the wallet prevented the prosecution from discovering it in its original location, thus altering the evidence.
What is People v. Meredith?