Cases Flashcards
Strickland v. Washington (SCOTUS)
When incompetence violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
Counsel did minimal prep for a sentencing hearing and the court said that was ok
Two prong test - defendant must show counsel was deficient, made errors so huge that defendant didn’t have functioning counsel (objective standard of reasonableness) AND deficient performance deprived defendant of fair trial (but for)
Later cases said if lawyers don’t do sufficent prep, it violates the first prong.
Helmedach v. Commissioner of Correction
Counsel didn’t tell his client about a plea deal for 2 and a half days, when it was too late to accept.
Plea deals don’t have anything to do with strategy. By holding back, counsel met Strickland’s first prong and the fact that she would have taken the deal met the second prong.
Purcell v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District ( Massachusetts Supreme Court)
Client told counsel that he planned to burn a building but wasn’t asking for advice about that. Attorney told the police of the potential crime and client was arrested for attempted arson.
The crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege only applies when the client plans to use the lawyer’s advice for a crime or fraud, but a lawyer may reveal enough information to protect the public good.
Upjohn Co. v. United States (SCOTUS)
The IRS demanded access to documents in an internal investigation and Upjohn denied access. The IRS claimed the attorney-client privilege didn’t apply because so many employees saw the documents.
The attorney-client privilege extends to all employees in a corporation.
Schaeffler v. United States (Second Circuit)
A company refused to give the IRS documents that it shared with a consortium of banks claiming attorney-client privilege.
Court said attorney-client privileges applies if both organizations have the same legal interest, even if one stands to commercially profit from it.
A document will be protected under the work-product doctrine if, “in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation.”
Sahl, John P.. Professional Responsibility in Focus (Focus Casebook Series) (p. 293). Wolters Kluwer. Kindle Edition.
In re Pacific Picture Corp (Ninth Circuit)
Petitioners gave the government privileged documents to help with an investigation. Respondants requested the same documents, claiming that petitoners waived attorney-client privilege when they gave the documents to the government.
In federal court, a party permanently waives attorney-client privilege by voluntarily disclosing privileged documents to the federal government.
No selective waiver - showing documents to a party in one case but not another
In re von Bulow (Second Crcuit)
After von Bulow died, his lawyer wrote a book about his case in which he included privileged info. Von Bulow’s children sued him on behalf of their mom and settled out of court. After the book came out, they wanted to see all the privilege communication.
The fairness doctrine does not apply, however, “when the privilege-holder or his attorney has made extrajudicial disclosures, and those disclosures have not subsequently been placed at issue during litigation.”
Sahl, John P.. Professional Responsibility in Focus (Focus Casebook Series) (p. 282). Wolters Kluwer. Kindle Edition.
In Re Grand Jury Investitgation (Ninth Circuit)
The government alleged that appellant’s laywers put false info in their responses and filed a motion to subpoena all privileged communication relating to the issue. The first prong was met and the court remanded the case for in camera review
To invoke the crime-fraud exception, a party must “satisfy a two-part test”: First, the party must show that “the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme.” Second, it must demonstrate that the attorney-client communications for which production is sought are “sufficiently related to” and were made “in furtherance of [the] intended, or present, continuing illegality.” The second element must be decided through in camera review.
Turner v. Rogers (SCOTUS)
Defendant was incarcerated for failing to pay child support. As an indigent, defendant said he should have court-appointed counsel.
The Due Process Clause does not require a right to counsel for an indigent individual at a civil contempt proceeding when there is a prospect of incarceration, but the court must have alternative procedural safeguards in place to determine whether counsel should be appointed. Safeguards for this case included (1) notice to the defendant that his “ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for the defendant to respond to statements and questions about his financial status, (e.g., those triggered by his responses on the form); and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay.
Sahl, John P.. Professional Responsibility in Focus (Focus Casebook Series) (p. 542). Wolters Kluwer. Kindle Edition.
Tumey v. Ohio (SCOTUS)
the Court struck down an Ohio statute that permitted local mayors to sit as judges and be paid out of the fines collected from those convicted of violating Ohio’s Prohibition Act. The mayors only received compensation if they convicted the defendants. The Court said the scheme was impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment because it gave the mayor “a direct, personal, pecuniary interest in convicting the defendant who came before him for trial.”
Ward v. Village of Monroeville (SCOTUS)
the fines did not go to the mayor personally, but went instead into his town’s coffers and made up a “substantial portion” of the municipality’s budget. The Court said that this scheme was impermissible because it created a “possible temptation” for the mayor to “maintain the high level of contribution from the mayor’s court.”
Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie (SCOTUS)
The Court found that it was impermissible for an Alabama Supreme Court justice to hear a case involving allegations of bad faith against an insurance company, where he was a plaintiff in a lawsuit involving a “very similar bad-faith-refusal-to-pay” in another Alabama court. As in Tumey and Ward, the Court held that the judge had a “direct, personal, substantial and pecuniary” interest in the case and that his participation therefore violated due process.
Sahl, John P.. Professional Responsibility in Focus (Focus Casebook Series) (p. 588). Wolters Kluwer. Kindle Edition.
Spaulding v. Zimmerman
Plaintiff got an aortic aneurysm do to a car accident but didn’t find out until years later
A trial court may vacate a settlement agreement when it is shown that a party possibly suffered injuries which were not revealed to the court at the time the settlement was approved.
In re Glass
Bar applicant wrote phony articles before and during law school and did not show enough evidence of rehabilitation.
An applicant for bar licensure whose past misconduct demonstrates dishonesty bears the burden of proving present moral fitness to engage in the practice of law.
In re Himmel
Client hired Himmel to get back money another lawyer stole from her. Instead of reporting the other lawyer, Himmel negotiated a settlement for his client. The bar found out about this later and suspended Himmel for a year.
In Illinois, an attorney may be disciplined for failing to report another attorney’s illegal or immoral conduct to the state bar.
West Bend Mutual Bank v. Schumacher
Client attempted to sue for malpractice but couldn’t prove they would have won but for Schumacher’s lawyering.
The Supreme Court of Illinois has stated succinctly that a cause of action for legal malpractice includes the following elements: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship that establishes a duty on the part of the attorney, (2) a negligent act or omission constituting a breach of that duty, (3) proximate cause of injury, and (4) actual damages.
Burnett v Sharp
Burnett fired Sharp and Sharp failed to return fees.
upon termination of the representation, a lawyer has a duty to return any unearned part of the retainer and any other client property to which the client is entitled
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe
Togstag consulted them about a legal malpractice case and they told Togstag that there was no case without doing any research.
In Minnesota, an attorney speaking with a potential client regarding a medical malpractice case must, at minimum, request medical authorizations from the client to review hospital records and consult with an expert in the field.
