Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

settlementattorneylease
plaintiffrespondent

Related Cases

In re Ryland, 985 So.2d 71, 2008-0273 (La. 6/6/08)
View Case »
Kluger v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 4145902
View Case »
Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488, 23 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 12, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,025, 29 Fed.R.Serv.2d 733
View Case »
Benjamin v. Koeppel, 85 N.Y.2d 549, 650 N.E.2d 829, 626 N.Y.S.2d 982
View Case »
Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 499 U.S. 974, 111 S.Ct. 1618, 113 L.Ed.2d 716, 59 USLW 3718, 59 USLW 3723
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Addison, 226 Neb. 585, 412 N.W.2d 855

Facts

Ernest H. Addison represented Joseph Medina in a personal injury case following an automobile accident in Omaha, Nebraska, on January 12, 1985. Medina incurred significant medical expenses totaling approximately $112,836.36 after being struck by a vehicle. During negotiations with Lutheran Medical Center regarding a lien on Medina's settlement, Addison failed to disclose the existence of a third insurance policy from Sea Insurance Company, leading to a release of the hospital's lien based on incomplete information.

It appears from the record that the charge in question arose out of an action filed in the district court for Douglas County, Nebraska, on behalf of plaintiff Joseph Medina.

Issue

Did Ernest H. Addison violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to disclose the existence of a third insurance policy while negotiating a hospital lien release?

The referee also found that the respondent's act of omission in failing to correct Winchester's false impression constituted a violation of DR 7–102(A)(5).

Rule

The court applied the principles outlined in Canon 1, DR 1–102(A)(1), (4), (5), and (6), and Canon 7, DR 7–102(A)(5) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require attorneys to disclose material facts and avoid misrepresentation.

The referee recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for a period of 6 months.

Analysis

The court found that Addison had a duty to disclose the existence of the Sea Insurance Company policy to the hospital's representative, Gregory Winchester. By failing to correct Winchester's misunderstanding and negotiating the lien release based on incomplete information, Addison violated the ethical rules governing attorney conduct. The referee's findings were supported by evidence that Addison's omissions constituted misrepresentation.

We believe that the referee was correct in his findings of fact and law and that the recommendation and consent thereto was proper.

Conclusion

The court upheld the referee's recommendation and imposed a six-month suspension on Addison, effective December 1, 1987, for his violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Accordingly, we enter a judgment of suspension for 6 months, said suspension to commence on December 1, 1987.

Who won?

The Nebraska State Bar Association prevailed in this disciplinary action, as the court agreed with the referee's findings and recommendations for suspension due to Addison's ethical violations.

Judgment of suspension.

You must be