Mckee v. Cosby
(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of Bill Cosby's motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds in a case alleging defamation when the New York Daily News published an article in which the plaintiff accused him of rape and a purportedly confidential letter drafted by Cosby's attorney in response was released to news outlets and websites worldwide.
Small Justice LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC
(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under Massachusetts law for libel and intentional interference, affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on the remaining claims, and affirming the award of attorney fees and costs to the defense in a case where an attorney was the subject of two negative reports because the law immunized the defense for many of the complaints.
Facebook Inc. v. Touchstone
(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate in the case of a criminal defendant awaiting trial on the charge of attempted murder who sought the Facebook posts of the victim directing the respondent superior court to vacate its order denying Facebook's motion to quash subpeonas duces tecum and vacate order allowing subpeona duces tecum and enter a new order granting the petitioner's motion because the Stored Communications Act prohibits electronic communications service providers from knowingly divulging the contents of a communication and no exception applied.
Friedman v. Bloomberg, L.P.
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of a defamation action as it related to out-of-state defendants because Connecticut's long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants excepting defamation actions does not violate the plaintiff's First or Fourteenth Amendment rights in a case where a media publisher reported on the plaintiff's lawsuit accusing their former Netherlands employer of a kickback operation involving Qaddafi and quoted the employer's statements about him, but reversing and remanding a decision that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim as it related to the employer's statements that he had repeatedly tried to extort money from them to determine whether the implication was indeed defamatory.
Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Vidangel, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.
Skulason v. California Bureau of Real Estate
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a trial court judgment granting writ of mandate and the award of attorney's fees in the case of a real estate salesperson who sued a state agency for publicizing her three misdemeanor convictions because they had no mandatory duty to remove from their website information about a licensee's convictions even if they were eventually dismissed.
Diesel eBooks, LLC v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.
Abbey House Media, Inc. v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.
Council Tree Investors Inc. v. FCC
(United States Third Circuit) - Denying a petition to review an FCC order allowing the limitation of bidding credits available to 'designated entities' in the bidding process for electromagnetic spectrum licenses since the decision was not arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Wu v. O'Gara Coach Co., LLC
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order disqualifying attorneys. The appeals court held that no evidence had been presented that Plaintiff's attorneys possessed confidential attorney-client privileged information relevant to the suit and that if there was a conflict other lawyers in the law firm could represent Plaintiff.
Doe v. Superior Court (Southwestern Community College District)
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a lawyer should not have been disqualified from representing a student-employee at a community college in a sexual harassment case. He did not violate California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct concerning communications with represented parties when he contacted another student-employee seeking a witness statement. Granted writ relief.
Troice v. Greenberg Traurig L.L.P.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that investors could not proceed with a lawsuit accusing an attorney of being complicit in a client's Ponzi scheme. The attorney had immunity because, under Texas law, a non-client is not allowed to sue an attorney for conduct that occurred within the scope of the attorney's representation of a client. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the law firm.
Connelly v. Bornstein
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution claims against attorneys is one year. Accordingly, the present lawsuit was time-barred. Affirmed the decision below.
Martinez v. O'Hara
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney committed misconduct by manifesting gender bias. Reported him to the State Bar. The attorney had filed a notice of appeal that referred to a female judicial officer's ruling as succubustic, a word that refers to a demon assuming female form that has sexual intercourse with men in their sleep.
People v. Landers
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $950 sanction imposed on a deputy public defender for violating a reciprocal discovery order by failing to disclose statements taken from a witness. Concluded that there was no discovery violation under the circumstances here.
O'Gara Coach Co., LLC v. Ra
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a law firm was disqualified from representing a party in an unfair business practices case due to a conflict of interest. Reversed the denial of a disqualification motion.
Ironshore Europe DAC v. Schiff Hardin, L.L.P.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an excess insurer could not sue an insured's lawyers for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer claimed that the lawyers led it to believe that a product liability suit posed no threat of exposure to its policy. Concluding that the law firm was immune from suit under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss and rendered a judgment of dismissal.
Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to disqualify another party's counsel in longstanding litigation over groundwater rights. Stressed the movant's long delay in seeking disqualification, in this case where counsel allegedly had a conflict of interest.
City of San Diego v. Superior Court (Hoover)
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that there was no need to disqualify a city attorney's office from representing the city in a police officer's employment lawsuit. The officer argued that disqualification was necessary because she had been forced to answer questions about her lawsuit during a police internal affairs interview about another matter. Ordered the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying the city attorney's office.
Bridgepoint Construction Services, Inc. v. Newton
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order disqualifying an attorney from representing a client due to a conflict of interest. The attorney argued that there was no conflict, but the California Second Appellate District concluded otherwise. The panel stated that when an attorney represents more than one client, all of whom seek damages from a pool of money controlled by another party, the conflict is self-evident: there might not be enough money to satisfy each client's claim.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc.
(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.
Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that plaintiff's counsel was not liable for breaching a provision in a settlement agreement requiring him to keep the settlement confidential. Upon being sued by the other settling party for speaking with the online news media about this product liability case, the plaintiff's counsel filed a SLAPP motion. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District held that the settlement agreement's language purporting to impose a confidentiality obligation on the attorney was unenforceable in this case.
Knutson v. Foster
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney was not entitled to a new trial after a jury found him liable to a client for intentional torts. The attorney argued that the client failed to prove causation. Disagreeing, the Fourth Appellate District concluded that claims of fraudulent concealment and intentional breach of fiduciary duty brought against an attorney are subject to the substantial-factor causation standard, not the trial-within-a-trial or but-for standard employed in cases of legal malpractice based on negligence. The panel also held that the testimony of the client alone sufficed here to support her emotional distress damages.
Fluidmaster v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order disqualifying a law firm from an insurance coverage case based on a newly hired associate's conflict of interest. While the disqualification ruling was pending on appeal, the discovery associate left the 500-plus attorney firm. Based on this development, the Fourth Appellate District reversed the disqualification order and returned the case to the trial court with directions to reweigh the competing disqualification considerations in light of Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776 (2010).
Ellis v. Harrison
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's denial of a California inmate's habeas corpus petition alleging the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney held deeply racist beliefs about African Americans in general and him in particular because he conceded he was unaware of his attorney's racism until years after the conviction was final and couldn't identify any acts or admissions by his attorney that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Magana v. The Superior Court of San Mateo County
(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.
Medical Board of California v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.
Hernandez v. Chappell
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus as to the guilt phase claims relating to first degree murder, vacating the convictions and remanding because if counsel had performed effectively by investigating and presenting evidence of the defendant's diminished mental capacity defense based on mental impairment there was a reasonable probability at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt about his ability to form the requisite mental state for first degree murder.
Apelt v. Ryan
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacating a district court judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and affirming the denial of other forms of relief challenging the conviction and death sentence for first degree murder because although there were representation issues relating to sentencing the deficiencies were not prejudicial.
US v. Garthorne
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Determining that the sentencing court in a criminal case did not plainly err in designating a defendant a career offender did not mean that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to that designation because the standards for review of the decisions do not necessarily result in equivalent outcomes, but that in the present case the failure to do so resulted in ineffective assistance and the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
P. v. The North River Insurance Company
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of a bail surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond in a case where a defendant charged with drug trafficking offenses fled the country and was barred from reentry on account of the pending charges because the trial court may not grant a motion to vacate the forfeiture on a ground not asserted and on evidence not presented until after the appearance period has expired.
Boyd v. Freeman
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing and remanding a claim of wrongful foreclosure in a case arising out of a contentious set of circumstances in which an attorney initiated foreclosure proceedings against a former client who filed a prior action alleging legal malpractice and other wrongdoing, characterizing the loan securing the property as usurious because prior demurrers did not bar the action and did not contravene the rule against splitting a cause of action.
P. v. Lucero
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trail court's denial of a motion for a new trial in the case of a serially absent defendant who had secured an opportunity to have his motion heard due to the ineffective assistance of counsel upon the motion's first presentation, but when he failed to appear for the new hearing, represented by the same lawyer as previously, the court held that the lawyer's previous ineffective assistance afforded sufficient grounds for the appointment of a new lawyer, but that the trial court needn't do so unless and until the defendant requested.
Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.
Keane v. HSBC Bank USA
(United States First Circuit) - In a civil procedure action, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's case after his attorney failed to appear at a scheduled motion hearing is reversed for abuse of discretion where there was no suggestion of intentional failure to appear, no prior neglect by counsel to appear, the district court gave no notice that failure to appear would result in dismissal with prejudice, and plaintiff's claims would be left without a single merits determination.
In re Bressman
(United States Third Circuit) - In an ethics case, the bankruptcy court's order to vacate a default judgment against the debtor after finding that plaintiffs' attorney, Max Folkenflik, intentionally deceived the court in omitting to inform it of a relevant settlement agreement is affirmed where Folkenflik's misconduct constituted a fraud on the court.
Browning v. Baker
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of habeas corpus to a petitioner challenging his conviction for crimes involving the robbery and murder of a man in a Las Vegas jewelry store that resulted in the death penalty because a combination of prosecutorial misconduct and woefully inadequate assistance of counsel produced an extreme malfunction in the state criminal justice system.
Weingarten v. US
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of a petition arguing that the petitioner's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when they conceded that charges were timely under the applicable statute of limitations before the trial where they were convicted of sexually abusing their daughter, but the court felt that counsel's decision to forego statutes of limitations arguments was not objectively unreasonable.
Trzaska v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.
(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing the pre-discovery dismissal of a wrongful termination claim filed by an in-house patent attorney against their former employer, L'Oreal, alleging that he was terminated for his refusal to violate ethical rules on their behalf because, as the court put it, his allegations were more than skin-deep.
US v. Boyland
(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the appeal of a judge convicted of 21 counts of public-corruption-related offenses, finding that subsequent decisions narrowing the interpretation of an 'official act' within the meaning of the federal bribery statute did not result in a plain error in the district court's instructions at trial.
Lee v. US
(United States Supreme Court) - In a criminal case in which defendant was advised by counsel to plead guilty to possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute, an 'aggravated felony' that subjected defendant to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(B), the sentence and conviction are vacated where defendant has demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel's erroneous advice that he would not be deported as a result of pleading guilty.
Tucker Ellis v. Evan Nelson
(California Court of Appeal) - In a writ proceeding to determine whether attorney work conduct privilege attaches to documents created by an attorney employee during their employment with an employer law firm, the lower court's judgment is vacated where the privilege attaches to the firm, rather than the employee.
McDermott Will & Emery v. Super. Ct.
(California Court of Appeal) - In defendants' petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate both its order finding real-party-in-interest did not waive the attorney-client privilege as it applied to an e-mail inadvertently turned over during discovery, and the court's order disqualifying a law firm from representing defendants in the underlying lawsuits, the petition is denied where, regardless of how the attorney obtained the documents, whenever a reasonably competent attorney would conclude the documents obviously or clearly appear to be privileged and it is reasonably apparent they were inadvertently disclosed, the State Fund rule requires the attorney to review the documents no more than necessary to determine whether they are privileged, notify the privilege holder the attorney has documents that appear to be privileged, and refrain from using the documents until the parties or the court resolves any dispute about their privileged nature.
The Urban Wildlands Group v. City of Los Angeles
(California Court of Appeal) - In an environmental action, challenging defendant city's finding that a project was exempt from formal environmental review, the trial court's grant of mandatory relief to plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is reversed where: 1) such relief is limited to default, default judgments, and dismissal; and 2) the trial court's grant of judgment to defendant after plaintiff counsel failed to prepare and lodge the administrative record as stipulated does not fall within either category.
Jacoby & Meyers v. The Presiding Justices
(United States Second Circuit) - In a putative class action challenging on First Amendment grounds New York's rules, regulations, and statutes prohibiting non‐attorneys from investing in law firms, alleging that the infusions of additional capital which the regulations now prevent would enable plaintiffs to improve the quality of the legal services that they offer and at the same time to reduce their fees, expanding their ability to serve needy clients, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs fail to allege the infringement of any cognizable constitutional right.
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County
(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.
Bundy v. U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for a writ of mandamus to force the district court to admit an attorney it had previously denied admission pro hac vice in the high-profile criminal trial of Cliven Bundy, the District Court's denial is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion, as there are a litany of reasons for denying the attorney's pro hac vice status.
Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court
(California Court of Appeal) - In an administrative law action challenging the trial court's order that communications between the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and its general counsel, concerning whether to seek injunctive relief against Gerawan Farming, Inc. over complaints of unfair labor practices, must be disclosed under the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6251, the order is reversed where the Board's internal communications concerning its prosecution of Gerawan Farming are protected by attorney-client privilege.
US v. Harmon
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Convictions against defendant, an attorney convicted of money laundering while representing a client charged with receiving stolen property, are affirmed where: 1) the prosecutor's failure to correct a grand jury witnesses' false testimony as to his motives for cooperating and failure to disclose impeachment evidence to the grand jury do not constitute structural error requiring automatic reversal; and 2) the prosecution's ex parte request that the district court decide in camera whether the government witness's informant activity needed to be disclosed at trial was not improper.
In re Hoover
(United States First Circuit) - In an ethics action, the district court's order of sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(b)(2) against debtor's attorney, ordering him to enroll in a one-semester class on legal ethics or professional responsibility at an ABA accredited law school, is affirmed where it was not an abuse of discretion to order such a sanction following the attorney's multiple misstatements of the law.