By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 2,2012
Rone v. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education The trial court lacked authority to award attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when the case at issue was an action or proceeding brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but did not involve one of the civil rights listed in that section.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 12,2012
Maracich v. Spears Lawyers who used FOIA requests to the South Carolina DMV to find plaintiff car buyers for a potential class action against car dealers for collection of unlawful fees did not violate a federal privacy statute that protects drivers’ personal information; the 4th Circuit upholds summary judgment for the lawyers who satisfied the “litigation” exception to the driver privacy statute.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 21,2012
North Carolina State Bar v. Barrett The complaint alleged a single false representation by the defendant-attorney in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct: the entry of a $7,400 loan from the seller to the buyer as a “down payment” on a HUD-1 statement, which defendant contended was approved by the lender’s loan officer Paul Johnson. However, at the hearing, the State Bar presented evidence of different alleged acts of fraud and additional alleged misrepresentations: that defendant had produced and submitted to the lender a different HUD-1 statement, which contained different financial information and included a forged signature purporting to be the seller’s. The failure to give defendant notice of the misconduct with which she was charged violated her right to due process.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 27,2012
North Carolina State Bar v. Staples Even though $81,000 was mistakenly wired into the defendant-attorney’s trust account, the funds constituted “entrusted property” within the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 23,2012
Wachovia Securities LLC v. Brand A securities firm that lost its FINRA arbitration proceeding against former employees who left to work for a competitor winds up paying over $1 million in attorney’s fees under a South Carolina statute that penalizes frivolous lawsuits; the 4th Circuit affirms the district court order refusing to vacate the arbitration award in favor of the former employees and upholding the award of $15,080 in treble damages and $1.1 million in attorney’s fees under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Act.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 8,2012
Royster v. McNamara In a prior fraud case against the current plaintiff — Kevin Royster — and other employees in a family business, the family’s motion for a new trial was denied, and this court affirmed the denial. However, in the fraud case, both the jury instructions and the new trial motion applied to the family as a group and not to Mr. Royster individually. There was evidence that Mr. Royster had no dealings with the fraud plaintiff. Mr. Royster’s legal malpractice claim against the family’s attorney in the fraud case is not barred by collateral estoppel.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 27,2011
Danius v. Rodgers Even though the plaintiff-clients allege that the defendant-attorney’s negligence caused them to settle their claims against third parties for less than those claims would have otherwise been worth, the clients’ settlement of those claims constitutes an election of remedies and bars their claims against the attorney. We affirm summary judgment for defendants.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 9,2011
In re Liotti A New York lawyer with 33 years’ experience and an “AV rating,” who acted as court-appointed counsel in successfully appealing his client’s sentence for wire fraud and identity theft, has received a public admonition from the 4th Circuit for multiple misrepresentations in his representation of his client on appeal, including an assertion that the trial judge suppressed a letter from an informant.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 8,2011
North Carolina State Bar v. Hunter The defendant-attorney failed to serve process on a contractor and consultant, failed to have the summonses extended, and failed to answer the contractor and consultant’s complaint; moreover, she failed to file an answer on behalf of the same client in a separate matter. Defendant did not diligently represent her client. We affirm the State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission’s censure of defendant.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 7,2011
In re Petition for Reinstatement of McGee There is an administrative procedure for having a suspended law license reinstated; it is set out in 27 N.C.A.C. § 01B.0125(b). Petitioner cannot avoid this procedure by simply moving to amend the records of the State Bar to say that his law license had been reinstated and to strike portions of the Bar’s record reflecting otherwise. We affirm the Disciplinary Hearing Commission’s denial of petitioner’s motion to amend the Bar’s records.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.
State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
