DOCSLIB.ORG

SUPERIOR COURT of the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA Civil Division

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SUPERIOR COURT of the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA Civil Division Filed D.C. Superior Court 03/27/2018 17:45PM Clerk of the Court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division ) LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN ) MIDDLEMISS PLLC, ) 1899 Pennsylvania Ave, NW ) Suite 600 ) Washington, D.C. 20006 ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. ) v. ) ) SPHERE CONSUL TING LLC, ) 1775 Eye Street ~W ) Suite 410 ) Washington, D.C. 20006 ) ) Defendant. ) ____________ ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss pllc, as and for its complaint against defendant Sphere Consulting LLC hereby alleges as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is an action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment brought by a Washington, D.C. law firm against its former client. This action seeks recovery of legal fees duly owing but unpaid for legal services rendered to and expenses incurred on behalf of the client in the District of Columbia. PARTIES Plaintiff 2. Plaintiff Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss pllc (the "Firm") is organized as a professional limited liability company under the laws of the District of Columbia. It maintains its primary office in the District of Columbia, at 1899 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 600, Washington D.C. 20006. Defendant 3. Defendant Sphere Consulting LLC ("Sphere") is organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the District of Columbia. Its office is in the District of Columbia, at 1775 Eye Street NW, Suite 410, Washington, D.C. 20006. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under D.C. Code§ 11-921. FACTS Sphere's Retention of the Firm 5. Sphere retained the Firm for three legal matters for which invoices are outstanding. 6. On September 29, 2015, Sphere retained the Firm for legal counsel and representation in connection with an investigation into the conduct of a representative of one of Sphere's clients (hereinafter "Investigation #I"). The terms of the engagement were set forth in a letter which was sent to Sphere, which accepted the terms of engagement and accepted legal services pursuant to its terms. Sphere paid certain invoices issued in respect of services rendered in connection with Investigation # 1, and at no time relevant hereto objected to any of the terms of the engagement letter or the invoices rendered pursuant to its terms. 2 7. On March 20, 2017, the Firm was retained by an employee of Sphere, in connection with Investigation # 1. Sphere agreed to pay all fees incurred in the matter on behalf of the employee. The terms of the engagement were set forth in a letter that reflects Sphere's agreement to pay his invoices and were accepted by the employee and Sphere. At no time relevant hereto did Sphere object to any of the terms of the engagement letter or any invoices rendered in connection with that representation. 8. On May 1, 2017, Sphere retained the Firm to represent it in connection with another investigation (hereinafter "Investigation #2). The terms of the engagement were set forth in a letter which was sent to Sphere, which accepted the terms of engagement and accepted legal services pursuant to its terms. At no time relevant hereto did Sphere object to any of the terms of the engagement letter or any invoices rendered pursuant to its terms. 9. The Firm rendered legal services in each of the matters and submitted detailed invoices for those services and expenses incurred in accordance with the terms of the respective engagement letters. Sphere accepted each of the invoices, never objected to any of the charges, and continued to accept services performed on its behalf by the Firm. Indeed, on multiple occasions, the client represented orally and in writing that it received high quality services and intended to pay the outstanding invoices. Non-Payment of Fees and Expenses 10. Plaintiffs legal services for defendant included hundreds of hours of legal work. While Sphere received the full benefit of the Firm's legal services for each of the three matters, it did not pay for the vast majority of them, resulting in a total outstanding debt of $572,801.87 due to the Firm. 3 11. With respect to legal representation in connection with Investigation #1, Sphere paid only the first two of 13 invoices. On November 4, 2015, it paid $14,904 for services rendered from July 2015 through October 2015. On July 27, 2016, Sphere paid $75,853.51 for services rendered in November 2015. The 11 outstanding invoices for legal services rendered and expenses incurred cover the period from January 2016 to January 2018 and total $147,704.89. Sphere has not paid these invoices. 12. In April and May 2017, the Firm invoiced Sphere a total of $75,130.61 for legal services rendered and expenses incurred in its representation of its employee in connection with Investigation #1. Sphere has not paid these invoices. 13. With respect to representation in connection with Investigation #2, from June 2017 to January 2018, the Firm invoiced Sphere a total of $349,966.37 for legal services rendered and expenses incurred. Sphere has not paid the invoices. 14. The Firm has repeatedly sought to resolve this matter with Sphere. It has offered to discount the amount outstanding if it were paid in full, and has also proposed payment plans that would permit Sphere to pay the amount outstanding over time. Sphere has failed to respond concretely to these overtures and has made no counter-proposals. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count One - Breach of Contract 15. The Firm adopts and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth above. 16. The Firm and Sphere entered into valid and binding engagement agreements requiring payment for legal services rendered by the Firm to Sphere and its employee. 4 17. The Firm duly rendered the legal services contemplated by those agreements. In accordance with the agreements, it invoiced Sphere for those services at regular intervals and its invoices were both compliant with the agreements and reasonable for the services rendered. Defendant was at all times aware of the Firm's activities, the personnel involved in the representations, and the work being done. The Firm discounted each invoice by ten percent as a courtesy to Sphere. 18. Sphere breached each of the engagement agreements by failing to pay amounts due in accordance with the terms set forth therein. 19. The unpaid balance of Sphere's contractual obligation to the Firm is $572,801.87 in fees and expenses. Count Two - Quantum Meruit 20. The Firm adopts and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth above. 21. Between July 2015 and January 2018, the Firm provided legal services to Sphere in accordance with Sphere's instructions and as set out in the engagement letters sent to Sphere by the Firm. Sphere knew the terms of the engagement letter in each of the three matters for which it retained the Firm and knew that the Firm expected payment for its services. Sphere accepted legal services, on its own behalf, and on behalf of its employee (who also directly accepted services by the Firm). Defendant was at all times aware of the Firm's activities, the personnel involved in the representations, and the work being done. 22. Sphere failed to pay the Firm in full for the services rendered. 23. If the Court does not find for plaintiff in Count One, plaintiff pleads in the alternative that it is entitled to recover from defendant in quantum meruit. 5 24. The value of the uncompensated services is $572,801.87. Count Three - Unjust Enrichment 25. The Firm adopts and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth above. 26. Between July 2015 and January 2018, the Firm provided legal services to Sphere in accordance with Sphere's instructions and as set out in the engagement letters sent to Sphere by the Firm. Sphere knew the terms of the engagement letter in each of the three matters for which it retained the Firm and knew that the Firm expected payment for its services. Sphere accepted legal services, on its own behalf, and on behalf of its employee (who also directly accepted services by the Firm). Defendant was at all times aware of the Firm's activities, the personnel involved in the representations, and the work being done. 27. If the Court does not find for plaintiff on Counts One or Two, plaintiff pleads in the alternative that it is entitled to recover from defendant for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff performed legal services in exchange for a promise of payment. Defendant benefitted from these legal services, but did not pay for them. 28. Defendant has been unjustly enriched (and plaintiff has suffered a corresponding loss) on account of these uncompensated services and unpaid expenses in the amount of $572,801.87. 6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE plaintiff respectfully requests entry of judgment against defendant for damages in the amount of $572,801.87, for interest from the date of judgment per D.C. Code § 15-109, plus costs of action, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: March 27, 2018 Isl 1effre_y D. Robinson Jeffrey D. Robinson (D.C. Bar No. 376037) Tara J. Plochocki (D.C. Bar No. 989404) LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN MIDDLEMISS PLLC 1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel. (202) 833-8900 Fax (202) 466-5738 ieffrev.robinson(il)!hkmla-1N.com tara.plochocki(d;lbkrnla\V .corn Attorneys for Plaintif 7 Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH INFORMATION SHEET Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC Case Number: _ vs Date: March 27 2018 Sphere Consulting LLC D One of the defendants is being sued in their official capacity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ambiguous Role and Responsibilities of a Guardian Ad Litem in Texas in Personal Injury Litigation
    SMU Law Review Volume 51 Issue 1 Article 7 1998 The Ambiguous Role and Responsibilities of a Guardian Ad Litem in Texas in Personal Injury Litigation Jennifer L. Anton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Jennifer L. Anton, Comment, The Ambiguous Role and Responsibilities of a Guardian Ad Litem in Texas in Personal Injury Litigation, 51 SMU L. REV. 161 (1998) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol51/iss1/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. Comments THE AMBIGUOUS ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN TEXAS IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION Jennifer L. Anton TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 162 II. H ISTO RY ................................................ 162 III. WHAT IS A GUARDIAN AD LITEM? ................. 164 IV. WHY SHOULD A GUARDIAN AD LITEM BE APPOINTED IN A CIVIL MATTER? ................... 165 V. DISTINCTION BETWEEN A GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND AN ATTORNEY AD LITEM ...................... 167 VI. WHEN DURING THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD THE COURT APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD L IT E M ? .................................................. 168 A. DEFENDANT'S PERSPECTIVE ........................... 169 B. PLAINTIFF'S PERSPECTIVE ............................. 169 VII. WHO MAY BE APPOINTED AS A GUARDIAN AD LITE M ? .................................................. 170 VIII. THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM ................................ 171 A. THE ROLE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ............................ 172 1. Evaluating the Minor's Damages .................. 174 2. Evaluating the Adequacy of the Settlement A m ount ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Doctrine of Virtual Representation in Texas
    SMU Law Review Volume 11 Issue 2 Article 7 1957 The Doctrine of Virtual Representation in Texas L. A. Duffy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation L. A. Duffy, Comment, The Doctrine of Virtual Representation in Texas, 11 SW L.J. 210 (1957) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol11/iss2/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE DOCTRINE OF VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION IN TEXAS Of universal application in the United States is the rule that judg- ments and decrees are binding only upon the parties to the con- troversy. Like many legal rules, equity has developed exceptions to alleviate what in some instances would be an intolerable result. The doctrine of virtual representation, more popularly known as the class suit, is such an exception. Developed in the equity courts of England, this rule has been generally accepted in varying forms throughout the country,1 and several states have adopted the doc- trine by statute.! Texas, at one time or another, has applied almost all facets of the rule, although only part of it has been codified.' ELEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE The doctrine of virtual representation recognizes that there are situations where all requisite parties cannot appear before the court, and therefore provides that the absent proper parties can be repre- sented by persons present who hold the same interest in the con- troversy and who will therefore adequately protect the absent proper parties' interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Family Matters in Guardianship
    COMPLEX FAMILY MATTERS IN GUARDIANSHIP Updated by DARLENE PAYNE SMITH SHARON B. GARDNER Presented by DARLENE PAYNE SMITH State Bar of Texas ADVANCED GUARDIANSHIP COURSE March 6, 2009 Houston CHAPTER 11 Special thanks to Sarah Patel Pacheco for use of portions of her Contested Guardianship and Peace Treaties speeches. SHARON BRAND GARDNER is a shareholder with Crain, Caton & James, P.C. in Houston, Texas. Ms. Gardner specializes in probate, trust, and guardianship law. She is Editor of the Texas Guardianship Manual published by the State Bar of Texas and a Co-Author of The Texas Probate Practice Series published by West Publishing. She is an adjunct professor teaching estate administration and guardianship at South Texas College of Law, Houston, Texas. She is a Fellow of the American College of Probate and Trust Counsel. DARLENE PAYNE SMITH Crain, Caton & James, P.C. 1700 Five Houston Center Houston, Texas 77010-4035 713-752-8640 Email - [email protected] EDUCATION Bachelor of Science: Criminal Justice, University of Houston (Magna Cum Laude) Doctor of Jurisprudence, University of Houston Law Center MEMBERSHIPS & CERTIFICATIONS Texas Bar Association; Houston Bar Association; Texas Bar Foundation; Probate Legislative Sub-Committee -- Houston; Past President –Women Attorneys in Tax and Probate; Former Vice President – Disability and Elder Law Lawyers Association; Planning Committee – Elder Law Section, State Bar; Planning Committee – Wills and Probate Institute; Elder Law Committee; Certified by the State Bar of Texas Pursuant to Texas Probate Code § 647A as Ad Litem PERSONAL Married – Michael David Smith; Three Children – Stephan, Coleman and Hallie; Hobbies - Singing, pistol shooting, tennis and squash. SPEAKER/AUTHOR Speaker: Estate Planning for the Cancer Patient.
    [Show full text]
  • COURT APPROVAL of SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING MINORS OR INCOMPETENTS by WILLIAM S
    COURT APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING MINORS OR INCOMPETENTS By WILLIAM S. MILLS GLENN, MILLS & FISHER, P.A. DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA I. SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING MINORS Settlements involving the claims of minors present several procedural and ethical issues for the attorney. Because your client is a minor, he or she cannot be bound by contracts such as releases, if the minor chooses to disavow the contract after the minor reaches the age of majority. As a result, procedures have developed as a result of a combination between various statutes and case law requiring that any settlement contract be approved by the court. A. COURT APPROVED MINOR’S SETTLEMENTS Settlements of claims involving minors should be approved by court order. This applies regardless of whether settlement is reached before or after filing suit. A minor cannot be bound by proposed compromise and settlement of a minor’s personal injury claim unless it is properly approved by a judge. Gillikan v. Gillikan, 252 N.C. 1, 113 S.E.2d 38 (1960). The courts of this state have inherent authority over the property of infants and will exercise this jurisdiction whenever necessary to preserve and protect children’s estates and interests, Sternberger Foundation, Inc. v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658, 161 S.E.2d 116 (1968), and will look closely into contracts or settlements materially affecting the rights of infants. Redwine v. Clodfelter, 226 N.C. 366, 38 S.E. 2d 203. A court approved settlement and subsequent judgment issued thereon, and the satisfaction of that judgment by the settling defendant, is not the satisfaction of a judgment under North Carolina General Statute §1B-3(e) and does not operate to discharge the other tortfeasors.
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Law
    SMU Law Review Volume 47 Issue 4 Annual Survey of Texas Law Article 18 1994 Insurance Law Philip K. Maxwell Tim Labadie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Philip K. Maxwell & Tim Labadie, Insurance Law, 47 SMU L. REV. 1227 (1994) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol47/iss4/18 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. INSURANCE LAW Philip K. Maxwell* Tim Labadie* I. UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS (ARTICLE 21.21 & THE DTPA) A. WHO CAN SUE AND WHO CAN BE SUED 1. Standing to Sue OME of the cases discussed in this section deny "standing" to sue under article 21.21 to so-called "third parties," i.e. those not a party to an insurance contract. Use of the words "standing" and "third party," however, are of doubtful application to a statutory cause of action. The San Antonio Court of Appeals had the following to say about "stand- ing" in a DTPA suit: In order for any person to maintain a suit it is necessary that they have standing to litigate the matters in issue. Standing consists of some inter- est peculiar to the person individually and not as a member of the gen- eral public. This general rule of standing applies in all cases absent a statutory exception to the contrary. The DTPA provides us with just an exception.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Standing
    Articles The Structure of Standing William A. Fletcher4 INTRODUCTION The structure of standing law in the federal courts has long been criti- cized as incoherent. It has been described as "permeated with sophistry,"' as "a word game played by secret rules,"2 and more recently as a largely meaningless "litany" recited before "the Court . chooses up sides and decides the case."' This unhappy state of affairs does not result from the unimportance of standing doctrine.4 If anything, the contrary is true. The root of the problem is, rather, that the intellectual structure of standing law is ill-matched to the task it is asked to perform. In this article I pro- pose a new structure, one that can serve as a paradigm not only in the scientific sense of explaining observed phenomena, 5 but also in the sense t Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley. A.B., Harvard University, 1968; B.A., Oxford University, 1970; J.D., Yale University, 1975. I wish to thank my colleagues and friends Stephen Bundy, Jesse Choper, Kevin James, Stephan Kuttner, Kirk McInnis, Robert Post, Edward Rubin, Joseph Sax, and Kim Scheppele, my father Robert Fletcher, and my wife Linda Fletcher, for their valuable criticism and suggestions. I particu- larly wish to thank Akhil Amar and Daniel Meltzer for their contributions. Finally, I wish to thank Adam Belsky and Pamela Johnston for their excellent research assistance. 1. 4 K. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 24:35, at 342 (2d ed. 1983). 2. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapman V. Kamara, No. 18, September Term, 1998
    Chapman v. Kamara, No. 18, September Term, 1998 CIVIL PROCEDURE—TRIAL COURT’S REVISORY POWER—LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. Where trial court exercised jurisdiction without service of process on defendant or valid waiver of process, court should upon motion have exercised revisory power to vacate judgment. Maryland Rule 2-535. CIVIL PROCEDURE—PERSONAL JURISDICTION—SERVICE OF PROCESS— WAIVER BY ATTORNEY’S APPEARANCE—PRESUMPTION THAT APPEARANCE IS AUTHORIZED. Where insured’s unrebutted testimony established lack of service of process and lack of authorization for insurer’s attorney’s appearance, any presumption that entry of attorney’s appearance was authorized was rebutted. ESTATES AND TRUSTS—PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE—ACTION BEFORE APPOINTMENT—RATIFICATION BY SUBSEQUENT ACTION. Where personal representative of estate participated in consent judgment against estate before appointment as personal representative, he ratified consent judgment by doing nothing to amend or alter consent judgment during his subsequent tenure. Maryland Code (1974, 1991 Repl. Vol., 1998 Cum. Supp.) § 6-105 of the Estates and Trusts Article. CIVIL PROCEDURE—INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. Where prior judgment’s collateral estoppel effect arguably would entitle party in subsequent suit to summary judgment, where parties to original suit moved to vacate original judgment, and where no party to original suit opposed motion to vacate, party moving for summary judgment in subsequent suit was entitled to intervene to oppose motion to vacate. Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Civil No. CAL 93-23012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 18 September Term, 1998 CHERYL CHAPMAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY NORMAN COLE, II, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectices on Involving Non-State and Customary Actors in Justice
    Perspectives on Involving Non-State and Customary Actors in Justice and Security Reform Editors: Peter Albrecht Helene Maria Kyed Deborah Isser Erica Harper Perspectives on Involving Non-State and Customary Actors in Justice and Security Reform Editors: Peter Albrecht Helene Maria Kyed Deborah Isser Erica Harper Perspectives on Involving Non-State and Customary Actors in Justice and Security Reform Copyright © International Development Law Organization 2011 International Development Law Organization (IDLO) IDLO is an intergovernmental organization that promotes legal, regulatory and institutional reform to advance economic and social development in transitional and developing countries. Founded in 1983 and one of the leaders in rule of law assistance, IDLO's comprehensive approach achieves enduring results by mobilizing stakeholders at all levels of society to drive institutional change. Because IDLO wields no political agenda and has deep expertise in different legal systems and emerging global issues, people and interest groups of diverse backgrounds trust IDLO. It has direct access to government leaders, institutions and multilateral organizations in developing countries, including lawyers, jurists, policymakers, advocates, academics and civil society representatives. Among its activities, IDLO conducts timely, focused and comprehensive research in areas related to sustainable development in the legal, regulatory, and justice sectors. Through such research, IDLO seeks to contribute to existing Practice and scholarship on priority legal issues, and to serve as a conduit for the global exchange of ideas, best practices and lessons learned. IDLO produces a variety of professional legal tools covering interdisciplinary thematic and regional issues; these include book series, country studies, research reports, policy papers, training handbooks, glossaries and benchbooks.
    [Show full text]
  • Ripening Green Litigation: the Case for Deconstitutionalizing Ripeness in Environmental Law
    10_TOJCI.COON (DO NOT DELETE) 8/25/2015 2:39 PM RIPENING GREEN LITIGATION: THE CASE FOR DECONSTITUTIONALIZING RIPENESS IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW BY NORA COON * The justiciability doctrines of standing and ripeness routinely prevent courts from reaching the merits of environmental cases. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit dealt with the legal sources of standing and ripeness in Montana Environmental Information Center v. Stone- Manning. Affirming the lower court’s dismissal of a challenge to the possible approval of a surface mining permit, the Ninth Circuit ascribed ripeness to the Article III limitation on federal jurisdiction. This Chapter uses the case as a lens to examine the elision of standing and ripeness in the Ninth Circuit. It argues that the Ninth Circuit should abandon the tripartite structure that it currently employs—standing, constitutional ripeness, and prudential ripeness—and instead recognize only two doctrines: an Article III standing doctrine and a prudential ripeness doctrine. I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 812 II. MERGING THE DOCTRINES OF STANDING AND RIPENESS ........................... 815 A. Ripeness: “Standing on a Timeline” or Prudential? ..................... 815 B. Data on the Conflation of Standing and Ripeness in the Ninth Circuit’s Environmental Law Cases ................................... 816 1. Combining the Standing and Ripeness Analyses .................. 817 2. Source of Ripeness Doctrine ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    1 3 No. -7667 IN THE SUPREIIIE COURT OF THE UWITED ST4TE9 G I N A L Supreme Court, US. FILED MARIO N TAYLOR JAN 18 2i9 P!ainüfj vS, OFFICE OF THE CLERK BARREL VANNOY, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary Respondent On Petition for a Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifth Circuit, No, 1740933 Before: Dennis, Graves, Costa, Circuit Judges. The U.S District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana Before: Martin L.C. Feldman, District Judge, ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT Pro Se Marion Taylor #558611 Westyard Oak-1 Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, Louisiana 70712 U.S. Solicitor General Department ofjustice Rm., 5614 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20530-0001 .1-7-19 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the U.S. 5' Or. Court of Appeals has so far departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding in light of; 14Jllams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (citing Marbury v. MadLcon, I Cranch 137,177 (1803); Tegue v. an 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (1989)), and sanction such an departure by the U.S. District Court. (E.D.(La)), as to call for an exercise of this Court's saipervisory power, which the judicial power under section 2 of article 3 of the Constitution shall extend to a case in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shalt be made, under their authority; to controversies which the United States shall be a party.
    [Show full text]
  • KBA E-306 Issued: May 1985
    KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-306 Issued: May 1985 This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was in effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult the current version of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org), before relying on this opinion. Question: If an insurance company has negotiated a settlement with the parents of a minor child for an injury caused by the third party insured, and neither the parents nor the minor child are represented by an attorney, may an attorney paid by the insurance company prepare the petition for the appointment of a guardian and approval of the settlement, and appear in Court with the parents and minor child? Answer: Qualified yes. References: DR 5-105; ABA Informal Opinion 918 (1966). OPINION After noting that this question “is a difficult one”, the ABA provided guidance on this issue in Informal Opinion 918 based on the principles of Old Canon 6, the present counterpart of which is DR 5-105. The first question addressed by the ABA Committee was: “Is it a violation of ethics or good practice for an attorney representing an insurance company to also represent a minor who was injured by the company’s assured in a suit in equity to remove the disabilities of non-age of the minor in order that such minor may be in a position to execute a release without the necessity of a friendly suit or other procedure?” The Committee provided the following guidelines in answer to this question, which we believe provide appropriate guidance under DR 5-105: ..
    [Show full text]
  • Minorsettlementsfinalapril-2012.Pdf
    Timothy W. Waldeck, Esq. Waldeck Law Firm, P.A. (612) 375-1550 [email protected] Jeffrey V. Hill, Esq. Hill-Lamb LLP (971) 373-8800 [email protected] Frank L. Napolitani Eagle International Associates, Inc. (888) 313-2661 (702) 221-1399 [email protected] David A. Abrams, New Jersey Leland Eugene Backus, Nevada Mario C. Ciano, Ohio Alex J. Hagan, North Carolina Jeffrey V. Hill, Oregon David D. Hudgins, Virginia Pierre Humblet, Belgium Dale Jones, Louisiana David M. Macdonald, Texas Frank L. Napolitani, Nevada M. B. “Burt” Satcher, III, Georgia John W. VanDenburgh, New York Timothy W. Waldeck, Minnesota Immediate Past Chair: John E. Cuttino EAGLE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES, INC. April 2012 Dear Clients: Minor Settlements from Alabama to Wyoming is a compilation of the 50 states and District of Columbia’s statues and rules concerning Minors. Eagle members for all states contributed to this publication. This is an example of the collective efforts of Eagle providing both service and benefits to clients. We hope that you will find this booklet informative and useful in your respective practices and businesses. We invite you to contact any Eagle member with questions or comments. With best wishes! The Members of Eagle International Associates, Inc. IMPORTANT NOTICE: This publication is intended to provide general information and guidance regarding the included subject matter. The content of this publication does not constitute legal advice or opinion and should not be construed or treated as such. Although efforts have been made to provide accurate information, Eagle International Associates, Inc. and its member firms do not assume, and expressly disclaim, responsibility for any person’s reliance on the information contained herein.
    [Show full text]