Richardson v. Frontier Spinning Mills By raising the advice-of-counsel defense as to disparate share pricing, material disclosures in a stock purchase agreement, and otherwise, defendants waived attorney-client and work-product privileges as to (1) the mechanics of and manner in which the stock sale was structured; (2) the manner in which information concerning the sale was disclosed to outside shareholders...
Skelly v. Skelly A week before trial, defendant told her lawyer that she wished to seek the advice of other counsel, and she asked her lawyer to get her a continuance to allow her time to do so. The lawyer waited until the day before trial to tell defendant that the motion to continue had been denied six days earlier. Contrary to defendant’s wishes on the day of trial, the trial court allowed the lawyer to withdraw and commenced trial with defendant proceeding pro se.
Defendant was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain new counsel, which she did not receive. We reverse the Feb. 15, 2010 custody order and remand for further proceedings.
Marion Partners, LLC v. Weatherspoon & Voltz, LLP Hiring a lawyer did not relieve the plaintiff-landlords of the duty to read their lease, especially when the lawyer asked them to read the lease and told them changes had been made.
We affirm summary judgment for defendant.
Bodie Island Beach Club Association, Inc. v. Dixon Even though, within the three-year statute of limitations, the defendant-attorney allegedly failed to correct previous misrepresentations, a claim for legal malpractice accrues at the time of the attorney’s last affirmative act, not when the attorney fails to act or when the client suffers damages.
International Forest Products Corp. v. Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co. The law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP formerly represented Stonewall Packaging, LLC, and Stonewall assigned its claim to one of the plaintiffs herein. Since the duty of loyalty attaches to a client and not to a claim, McKenna Long is not disqualified from representing the defendants in a lawsuit filed by the assignee of the firm’s former client.
Plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify McKenna Long and its attorneys from representing defendants is denied. The court grants defendants’ motion for pro hac vice admission of Gregory Brow, Clair Carothers, and McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP.
Braun v. Trust Development Group, LLC The plaintiff-buyer alleged that the defendant-sellers breached the parties’ condo-sale contract by failing to provide architectural plans for a rooftop garden, and the sellers’ defense was that their performance was excused by the buyer’s anticipatory repudiation, based on alleged statements by plaintiff’s counsel that plaintiff could not obtain financing for the purchase. Since plaintiff’s counsel were potential witnesses, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it disqualified them.
We affirm the trial court’s order disqualifying plaintiff’s counsel.
Dunn v. Dart The parties are attorneys who represented some of the plaintiffs in a class action in federal court. Even if the attorneys had reached a final agreement as to how they would split fees - which they did not - any such agreement would be unenforceable because the clients never agreed to it in writing.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Rodgers v. Preferred Carolina Realty, Inc. When plaintiff released the defendant-attorney’s clients in a state-court lawsuit, plaintiff also released the attorney with regard to the actions the attorney took within the scope of his agency, i.e., his representation of the clients in the settled lawsuit.
The court grants the defendant-attorney’s and the defendant-law firm’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Ancelmo v. Oliver Plaintiffs told their attorney that they had made all the payments required by an installment sale agreement for a tract of real property, yet defendants refused to release the deed of trust encumbering the property. Plaintiffs said there was no promissory note, and plaintiffs’ attorney made oral and written requests that defendants produce any such promissory note. Defendants failed to produce a promissory note until more than a year after plaintiffs filed this lawsuit for breach of contract, specific performance, and “failure to extinguish proof of indebtedness.”
Nexsen Pruet, PLLC v. Martin Attorneys’ fees awarded as costs against an estate do not bear interest.
We affirm summary judgment for defendants.
In 2005, the plaintiff-law firm was awarded $150,259 in attorney’s fees and expenses from the estate of John Van Lindley. The firm received a $150,259 check on behalf of the estate in 2009.
The firm sought four years’ worth of interest on the $150,259, but the superior court ruled that an award of attorneys’ fees is an award of costs. Costs are excepted from those parts of a judgment that bear interest. G.S. § 24-5(b).
