Jump To Navigation

Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[08/31] Wolfe v. Schaefer
In an attorney's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the State Attorney and others, arising from his failed 2008 bid for State's Attorney of Cumberland County, Illinois, claiming that defendants violated the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by publicly disclosing that plaintiff was under investigation by Illinois state agencies for possible violations of legal ethics, tax law, and unemployment-insurance law, district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed as the fact that a candidate for public office is under investigation for legal and ethical violations is a matter of substantial public interest.

[08/31] Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

[08/27] In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys. , LP
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit, defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel because of its employment of a legal assistant, is conditionally granted as, because the legal assistant's employer did not take effective reasonable steps to shield the assistant from working on this case, and the assistant actually worked on the case at her employer's directive, disqualification is required and the trial court is directed to grant the defendant's motion to disqualify and recuse plaintiffs' counsel.

[08/26] Florida Bar v. Liberman
Following the conviction of an attorney for first degree felony of trafficking in the drug "Ecstasy," a referee's recommendation that the court accept the attorney's unconditional guilty plea and consent judgment for discipline, suspending him from the Florida Bar for three years is disapproved as, given the gravity of the offense, disbarment effective, nunc pro tunc, July 3, 2006 is the appropriate sanction in light of the criteria previously enunciated in Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130, (Fla> 1970).

[08/26] Florida Bar v. Hall
In an attorney's disciplinary proceedings, arising from forgery and fraudulent recording of a lease agreement and agreement for sale between the attorney and property owners, a referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is approved in part and disapproved in part where: 1) referee's finding of fact, recommendations of guilt, and award of costs are affirmed; 2) referee's reliance on Standard 7.0 is disapproved and instead Standard 5.0 should be applied; and 3) referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is unsupported, as after considering the factual findings, the totality of misconduct, case law, and the Standards, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

[08/20] Purdum v. Holmes
In plaintiff's action against a licensed notary for knowingly notarizing a third-party's signature on a deed as if it were plaintiff's, purporting to transfer plaintiff's interest to the third-party, trial court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion when it set aside defendant's default; and 2) trial court correctly concluded that each of plaintiff's causes of action against defendant was barred by the six-year maximum limitation period that is prescribed for an action against a notary in his official capacity by section 338(f)(3), regardless of delayed discovery.

[08/18] GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. BabyCenter, L.L.C.
In petitioner's appeal from the district court's order granting a motion to disqualify petitioner's counsel, the order is affirmed where counsel represented respondent's parent company, respondent and the parent company were so closely related that they were essentially one client for disqualification purposes, and counsel had thus engaged in concurrent representation, which it could not do without the parent company's consent.

[08/18] US v. Holstein
Conviction of defendant for bankruptcy fraud and making false statements in bankruptcy petitions, based on providing bankruptcy services at his law firm while on suspension for professional conduct, is affirmed as the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of both 18 U.S.C. section 157(1) and 18 U.S.C. section 1519.

[08/13] Wolfson v. Brammer
In an action by a candidate for judicial office in Arizona, challenging several canons of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) that restricted his political speech and campaign-related activities while a candidate for judicial office, dismissal of the action as moot is reversed where: 1) plaintiff presented a controversy evading review; 2) there was more than sufficient evidence to support a finding that plaintiff intended to seek judicial office in the future; and 3) it was true that plaintiff could not obtain revision of the Code from defendants, but he could nevertheless obtain a form of effective redress in this action.

[08/05] In Re: U.S.
In proceedings involving a grant of the government's renewed petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to admit into evidence in a drug related prosecution, evidence involving the recovery of latent fingerprints, defendant's petition for rehearing is denied as, based on the judge's demonstration of excess of emotion in excluding the evidence, the exacting standard for the grant of a writ of mandamus has been satisfied in this case.

[08/05] Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a law firm and an alternative dispute resolution entity, claiming that its state-court losses were the result of a corrupt conspiracy between defendants and members of the Pennsylvania state judiciary to exchange favorable rulings for future employment as arbitrators with the arbitration firm, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and denial of its motion for reconsideration and motions for leave to amend its complaint are affirmed where: 1) defendants' argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over this case is rejected as plaintiff is not complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments, but rather, plaintiff asserts an independent constitutional claim that the alleged conspiracy violated its right to be heard in an impartial forum; and 2) granting plaintiff leave to amend would have proved futile as even the final version of its complaint failed to plead facts plausibly suggesting a conspiratorial agreement.

[08/03] In re: Squire
In proceedings arising from the suspension of a former judge on the county's Domestic Relations and Juvenile Court from practicing law in state of Ohio for two years, district court's imposition of a reciprocal disbarment of petitioner from practicing in federal court is affirmed where: 1) the failure to disclose the names of those persons to whom the Ohio disciplinary counsel may have spoken during the course of his investigation, but who were not part of the administrative record resulting in petitioner's disbarment did not testify against her, was not a due process violation requiring reversal; 2) the record supports the district court's decision to impose reciprocal discipline on petitioner; and 3) petitioner's remaining claims are rejected as meritless.

[08/02] Haworth v. Superior Court
In a female patient's suit against her physician for negligence in performing plastic surgery on her lip, court of appeal's affirmance of the superior court's order vacating an arbitration award in favor of the physician on the ground that the neutral arbitrator had failed to disclose a matter "that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably to entertain a doubt that the...neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial," is reversed as the neutral arbitrator, a former judge of the superior court, was not required to disclose to the parties the circumstances that 10 years earlier, he received a public censure based upon his conduct toward and statements to court employees, which together created "an overall courtroom environment where discussion of sex and improper ethnic and racial comments were customary."

[07/30] Baker v. Simpson
In plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his motion to remand his legal malpractice action from a bankruptcy court to state court, the order is affirmed where claims of professional malpractice, based on services rendered pursuant to a Title 11 petition, "arise in" a bankruptcy case because they implicate the integrity of the bankruptcy process and are inseparable from that proceeding.

[07/29] Wersal v. Sexton
In an action claiming that three provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) unconstitutionally infringed upon First Amendment rights of judicial candidates, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) a plain reading of one of the clauses chilled plaintiff from engaging in speech–solicitation of funds–which the court had already held was protected First Amendment expression; 2) Minnesota had no compelling interest in preventing judicial preconceptions on legal issues; and 3) the endorsement clause was not a necessary evil to protect from a display of favoritism towards potential litigants.

Back to Main

Case Summaries

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[08/31] Wolfe v. Schaefer
In an attorney's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the State Attorney and others, arising from his failed 2008 bid for State's Attorney of Cumberland County, Illinois, claiming that defendants violated the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by publicly disclosing that plaintiff was under investigation by Illinois state agencies for possible violations of legal ethics, tax law, and unemployment-insurance law, district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed as the fact that a candidate for public office is under investigation for legal and ethical violations is a matter of substantial public interest.

[08/31] Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

[08/27] In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys. , LP
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit, defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel because of its employment of a legal assistant, is conditionally granted as, because the legal assistant's employer did not take effective reasonable steps to shield the assistant from working on this case, and the assistant actually worked on the case at her employer's directive, disqualification is required and the trial court is directed to grant the defendant's motion to disqualify and recuse plaintiffs' counsel.

[08/26] Florida Bar v. Liberman
Following the conviction of an attorney for first degree felony of trafficking in the drug "Ecstasy," a referee's recommendation that the court accept the attorney's unconditional guilty plea and consent judgment for discipline, suspending him from the Florida Bar for three years is disapproved as, given the gravity of the offense, disbarment effective, nunc pro tunc, July 3, 2006 is the appropriate sanction in light of the criteria previously enunciated in Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130, (Fla> 1970).

[08/26] Florida Bar v. Hall
In an attorney's disciplinary proceedings, arising from forgery and fraudulent recording of a lease agreement and agreement for sale between the attorney and property owners, a referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is approved in part and disapproved in part where: 1) referee's finding of fact, recommendations of guilt, and award of costs are affirmed; 2) referee's reliance on Standard 7.0 is disapproved and instead Standard 5.0 should be applied; and 3) referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is unsupported, as after considering the factual findings, the totality of misconduct, case law, and the Standards, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

[08/20] Purdum v. Holmes
In plaintiff's action against a licensed notary for knowingly notarizing a third-party's signature on a deed as if it were plaintiff's, purporting to transfer plaintiff's interest to the third-party, trial court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion when it set aside defendant's default; and 2) trial court correctly concluded that each of plaintiff's causes of action against defendant was barred by the six-year maximum limitation period that is prescribed for an action against a notary in his official capacity by section 338(f)(3), regardless of delayed discovery.

[08/18] GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. BabyCenter, L.L.C.
In petitioner's appeal from the district court's order granting a motion to disqualify petitioner's counsel, the order is affirmed where counsel represented respondent's parent company, respondent and the parent company were so closely related that they were essentially one client for disqualification purposes, and counsel had thus engaged in concurrent representation, which it could not do without the parent company's consent.

[08/18] US v. Holstein
Conviction of defendant for bankruptcy fraud and making false statements in bankruptcy petitions, based on providing bankruptcy services at his law firm while on suspension for professional conduct, is affirmed as the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of both 18 U.S.C. section 157(1) and 18 U.S.C. section 1519.

[08/13] Wolfson v. Brammer
In an action by a candidate for judicial office in Arizona, challenging several canons of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) that restricted his political speech and campaign-related activities while a candidate for judicial office, dismissal of the action as moot is reversed where: 1) plaintiff presented a controversy evading review; 2) there was more than sufficient evidence to support a finding that plaintiff intended to seek judicial office in the future; and 3) it was true that plaintiff could not obtain revision of the Code from defendants, but he could nevertheless obtain a form of effective redress in this action.

[08/05] In Re: U.S.
In proceedings involving a grant of the government's renewed petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to admit into evidence in a drug related prosecution, evidence involving the recovery of latent fingerprints, defendant's petition for rehearing is denied as, based on the judge's demonstration of excess of emotion in excluding the evidence, the exacting standard for the grant of a writ of mandamus has been satisfied in this case.

[08/05] Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a law firm and an alternative dispute resolution entity, claiming that its state-court losses were the result of a corrupt conspiracy between defendants and members of the Pennsylvania state judiciary to exchange favorable rulings for future employment as arbitrators with the arbitration firm, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and denial of its motion for reconsideration and motions for leave to amend its complaint are affirmed where: 1) defendants' argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over this case is rejected as plaintiff is not complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments, but rather, plaintiff asserts an independent constitutional claim that the alleged conspiracy violated its right to be heard in an impartial forum; and 2) granting plaintiff leave to amend would have proved futile as even the final version of its complaint failed to plead facts plausibly suggesting a conspiratorial agreement.

[08/03] In re: Squire
In proceedings arising from the suspension of a former judge on the county's Domestic Relations and Juvenile Court from practicing law in state of Ohio for two years, district court's imposition of a reciprocal disbarment of petitioner from practicing in federal court is affirmed where: 1) the failure to disclose the names of those persons to whom the Ohio disciplinary counsel may have spoken during the course of his investigation, but who were not part of the administrative record resulting in petitioner's disbarment did not testify against her, was not a due process violation requiring reversal; 2) the record supports the district court's decision to impose reciprocal discipline on petitioner; and 3) petitioner's remaining claims are rejected as meritless.

[08/02] Haworth v. Superior Court
In a female patient's suit against her physician for negligence in performing plastic surgery on her lip, court of appeal's affirmance of the superior court's order vacating an arbitration award in favor of the physician on the ground that the neutral arbitrator had failed to disclose a matter "that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably to entertain a doubt that the...neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial," is reversed as the neutral arbitrator, a former judge of the superior court, was not required to disclose to the parties the circumstances that 10 years earlier, he received a public censure based upon his conduct toward and statements to court employees, which together created "an overall courtroom environment where discussion of sex and improper ethnic and racial comments were customary."

[07/30] Baker v. Simpson
In plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his motion to remand his legal malpractice action from a bankruptcy court to state court, the order is affirmed where claims of professional malpractice, based on services rendered pursuant to a Title 11 petition, "arise in" a bankruptcy case because they implicate the integrity of the bankruptcy process and are inseparable from that proceeding.

[07/29] Wersal v. Sexton
In an action claiming that three provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) unconstitutionally infringed upon First Amendment rights of judicial candidates, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) a plain reading of one of the clauses chilled plaintiff from engaging in speech–solicitation of funds–which the court had already held was protected First Amendment expression; 2) Minnesota had no compelling interest in preventing judicial preconceptions on legal issues; and 3) the endorsement clause was not a necessary evil to protect from a display of favoritism towards potential litigants.

Back to Main