Zealous Counsel or Unethical Social Media Maven – How Far Can a Lawyer Go?

Image Youthpolicy.org

Conducting Online Research Of Jurors Just Got Less Perilous – Or Did It?

Representing Clients In The Age Of Social Media Is Not As Easy As You Think

Representing Clients In The Age Of Social Media Is Not As Easy As You Think

The Relationship Status of Social Media Evidence and Ethics

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Younan Props., Inc. - U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Younan Props., Inc.

Docket: 13-1365	Opinion Date: December 5, 2013
Judge: Posner
Areas of Law:

Wells Fargo sued the Younans for breach of contract. The defendants moved for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction over Sherry Younan because of lack of minimum contacts in Illinois and insufficient service of process. The district court ruled that the opposing parties were not of diverse citizenship and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Instead of amending, Wells Fargo moved, nine months after filing its original complaint, to be allowed to dismiss without prejudice. The defendants asked that dismissal be conditioned on Wells Fargo’s paying their legal expenses of $56,000. The judge dismissed, conditioned on Wells Fargo reimbursing defendants for $11,000 in legal expenses incurred in seeking dismissal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the defendants did not justify their “extravagant‐seeming request, which included more than $9,000 for two briefs each of which was just half a page long and merely incorporated by reference another lawyer’s brief.”

http://j.st/FAQ
View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Miller v. Herman - Seventh Circuit - Bankruptcy, Legal Ethics,

Miller v. Herman

Docket: 13-1186	Opinion Date: November 26, 2013
Judge: Bauer
Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

Attorney Stilp represented Miller in claims concerning the construction of Miller’s house by contractor Herman. The district court dismissed. Stilp recommended that Miller terminate the action based on state law. Miller told Stilp that needed time to consider whether to refile., Herman filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Herman’s bankruptcy attorney, Jones, prepared schedules listing the addresses of all creditors. Miller was listed as a creditor on the bankruptcy schedules and creditor matrix, but his address was listed as “c/o Thomas Stilp, Attorney” at Stilp’s office address. Notice of the bankruptcy was delivered to Stilp’s office but was routed to another attorney. Neither Stilp nor Miller was informed of the notice. Miller subsequently informed Stilp that he wanted to refile his complaint against Herman. Stilp then discovered that Herman had filed for bankruptcy protection. Miller did not take immediate action and, about a month later, the bankruptcy court entered a discharge order. About 13 months after he learned of Herman’s bankruptcy petition, Miller moved to reopen the case (11 U.S.C. 727(a)(4)(A)). The bankruptcy court denied the motion. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Miller had been properly served when notice was delivered to Stilp’s firm.

http://j.st/FJu
View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

Illinois Supreme Court Summaries

People v. Radojcic

Docket: 114197	Opinion Date: November 20, 2013
Judge: Theis
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Legal Ethics, White Collar Crime

Radojcic, his daughters, his attorney Helfand, and the office manager for one of his companies, were indicted for 52 financial crimes involving fraud on mortgage lenders. It was also alleged that Radojcic, while owing the IRS more than two million dollars, fraudulently obtained rental checks exceeding $500,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. After discovery, the state indicated its intent to call Helfand as a witness in exchange for use immunity. Helfand and Radojcic objected, asserting attorney-client privilege, and the trial court struck Helfand’s name from the state’s witness list. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, based on the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, which applies when a client seeks the services of an attorney in furtherance of criminal or fraudulent activity. Transcripts of grand jury testimony met the standard of providing a reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration, or attempted perpetration, of a crime or fraud by Radojcic and a reasonable basis to suspect that communications with Helfand were in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme. The state met its burden of overcoming the privilege; there was no need to examine Helfand in camera prior before trial testimony. The only attorney-client communications that are subject to disclosure are those related to transactions identified in the indictment.

http://j.st/yzz
View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

When Cleaning Up Your Facebook Can Lead To Dirty Consequences

Ethical Issues That Arise From Social Media Use In Courtrooms