Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorneylawyernegligence

plaintiffdefendantattorneylawyer

Related Cases

Faison v. Thornton, 863 F.Supp. 1204

Facts

In this case, plaintiffs' counsel, Singer and Shafer, engaged in ex parte communications with defendant Gilman, who was represented by counsel. Despite knowing that Gilman had legal representation, they discussed the case's subject matter with him, leading to a protective order and their disqualification as counsel. The magistrate judge later awarded the defendants $46,599.26 in attorneys' fees as a sanction for the attorneys' violation of ethical rules.

In this case, plaintiffs' counsel, Singer and Shafer, engaged in ex parte communications with defendant Gilman, who was represented by counsel.

Issue

Did the attorneys violate Nevada Supreme Court Rule 182 by engaging in ex parte communications with a represented party, and were the sanctions imposed appropriate?

Rule

Nevada Supreme Court Rule 182 prohibits attorneys from communicating about the subject of representation with a party known to be represented by another lawyer unless consent is obtained from the other lawyer or authorized by law.

Analysis

The court found that Singer and Shafer's actions constituted a clear violation of SCR 182, as they engaged in discussions about the case with Gilman without his counsel present. The attorneys' claims of misunderstanding or lack of intent were deemed insufficient to excuse their actions, as the rule is strict and does not allow for negligence or ignorance as defenses. The court emphasized that the attorneys had a duty to seek consent from Gilman's attorney before engaging in such communications.

The court found that Singer and Shafer's actions constituted a clear violation of SCR 182, as they engaged in discussions about the case with Gilman without his counsel present.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the magistrate's orders, including the sanctions against Singer and Shafer, concluding that their violation of ethical rules warranted the penalties imposed.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case as the court upheld the sanctions against the plaintiffs' attorneys for their misconduct.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Koen Book Distributors, Inc. v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 212 F.R.D. 283

San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5941, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5453

In re Heckmann Corp. Securities Litigation, 869 F.Supp.2d 519, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,339

In re Sather, 3 P.3d 403, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 2664

Williams v. Reed, 48 Cal.2d 57, 307 P.2d 353