Articles Posted in Legal Ethics

Published on:

By

Source: PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC v. JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Tex: Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2015 – Google Scholar

This is a decision affirming an arbitrator’s award of legal fees to Jenner & Block. The case is a typical attorney-client fee dispute, but here the Court enforced the parties’ arbitration clause.

The fee dispute arose out of patent litigation handled by Jenner & Block for Parallel Networks. Jenner & Block ultimately withdrew from the litigation after locating successor counsel for Parallel Networks. Jenner & Block cited the client’s failure to pay invoices on a timely basis and its lack of economic resources to continue the litigation.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Source: IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF AMUNDSON, 2015 ND 253 – ND: Supreme Court 2015 – Google Scholar

This appeal dealt with the issue of fees charged to probate estates. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a judgement against a lawyer that he repay $95,000 in legal fees that were excessive.

After Donald Amundson passed away in 2011, two executors were appointed. Donald’s will provided that all of his property was to pass to the Donald G. Amundson Trust. The trial court found that one of the co-executors breached a fiduciary duty owed to the estate by paying John Widdel, Jr.’s fee bills without questioning them. The District Court ordered Widdel to repay $95,000 to the Estate.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The case is Farley v. Koepp, 14-1695. The lawyer for the plaintiff had until March 11, 2013 to file a civil rights case. Here is what happened:

On March 8, 2013, the lawyer opened an electronic case file in the Southern District of Illinois. He then emailed a copy of the complaint and the civil cover sheet to the clerk’s office as required by the local rules. The clerk opened the electronic case file. As the court explains “on the next business day – Monday, March 11 – the attorney’s assistant tried to upload the complaint but encountered problems with the electronic payment system. It was not until Tuesday, March 12, that she successfully paid the filing fee and uploaded the complaint.”

The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case as untimely.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Filed April 27.

The ARDC charged a lawyer handling a divorce, Justin Tedrowe, with wrongfully altering a form, obstructing justice and defrauding an opponent. Tedrowe sucessfully defended himself at trial.

An accusation that a lawyer altered a document could be very difficult to defend. The ARDC would show that the document was altered (after it was signed) and then the lawyer would have a difficult time defending the claim.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Paul v. Patton :: 2015 :: California Court of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia.

This opinion discusses an issue which comes up often – to whom does the estate planner’s duty lie? The typical fact pattern of these cases is as follows. A lawyer represents a parent who has several children. Later the parent dies and the children claim that the will or trust was not consistent with the parent’s intentions.

The first line of defense in these cases was that the lawyer owed no duty to the children. After all he had an attorney-client relationship with the parent, not the children. To accept this defense means that no estate planner could ever be sued for legal malpractice by the beneficiaries. In recent years, courts have steadily rejected the privity argument.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

KAYMARK v. Bank of America, NA, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2015 – Google Scholar.

This is a case filed under the fair debt collection practices act. An attorney, acting on behalf of Bank of America, filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Kaymark. Kaymark brought a claim against the attorney and other parties under the FDCPA alleging that the lawyer violated the Act by seeking recovery of legal fees that had not as of yet been incurred.

This is the court’s discussion of the allegation:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In re Krull :: 2015 :: Iowa Supreme Court Decisions :: Iowa Case Law :: Iowa Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia.

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a reprimand to an attorney, Douglas Krull, who was also a part-time magistrate. As a lawyer Krull represented a woman against her ex-husband in her efforts to modify child custody arrangements. As a magistrate, Krull signed a search warrant allowing the police to search the home of his client. Because the custody case was deemed “related” to the criminal case, Krull violated the Code of Judicial Ethics because his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Its difficult to understand how the attorney could have failed to recognize the problem that signing a warrant to allow the police to search his client’s home would case. At the very least, he could count on an angry call from the client (or soon to be former client).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

It’s unethical for prosecutors to lend out letterhead to debt collectors, ABA opinion says.

The ABA has issued an ethics opinion (No. 469) which provides that prosecutors should not lend their stationery to debt collectors. Some prosecutors were lending their letterhead to debt collectors who were then using the letterhead to collect money from debtors. The obvious problem is that the use of this letterhead is designed to threaten people who cannot pay their bills with prosecution.

My reaction to this opinion is one of disbelief. Has our profession really sunk so low that we are letting debt collectors use official letterhead to collect money? Did it not occur to these prosecutors that it was a bad idea to use the imprimatur of their office to collect private debts? Are we not professionals who hold ourselves out to the public as the protectors of civil liberty and rule of law? Who were the people who thought this was a good idea?

Continue reading →
Contact Information
111 W Washington St, #1437
Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312.357.1515

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2026, The Clinton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design