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

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantattorneytrialclass action
plaintiffattorneyappealtrialclass action

Related Cases

Traystman, Coric and Keramidas v. Hundley, 102 Conn.App. 490, 925 A.2d 1161
View Case »
In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595, 31 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1542, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,969, 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 748
View Case »
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 130 S.Ct. 447, 175 L.Ed.2d 398, 78 USLW 3315, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,171, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,705, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 9
View Case »
Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 65 USLW 2271, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7212, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,761
View Case »
State ex rel. Scott v. Roper, 688 S.W.2d 757, 52 A.L.R.4th 1031, 53 USLW 2521
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Woods v. Covington County Bank, 537 F.2d 804, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,745

Facts

The case arose from two class action lawsuits filed by former prisoners of war against Alabama defendants for their alleged involvement in a fraudulent scheme related to industrial development bonds. Roger J. Nichols, a naval reserve attorney, was initially involved in investigating the claims while on temporary duty with the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps. After completing his active duty, he was approached by the former POWs to represent them in a private capacity, leading to the disqualification order from the District Court.

The two cases which underlie this appeal were initially filed as class actions to recover funds invested in certain industrial development bonds issued by the City of Tuskegee, Alabama.

Issue

Whether the ethical rules prohibiting an attorney from accepting private employment in a matter where he had substantial responsibility while in public employ apply to military reservists on active duty for training.

The court of Appeals, Ainsworth, Circuit Judge, held that Ethical Canon and Disciplinary Rule precluding an attorney from accepting private employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility while in the public employ are not applicable to military reservists who have been on active duty for training.

Rule

Ethical Canon and Disciplinary Rule precluding an attorney from accepting private employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility while in public employ do not apply to military reservists who have been on active duty for training.

The court held that Nichols' continued representation of the plaintiffs in these cases does not violate the ethical requirements of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Analysis

The court analyzed the application of the ethical rules to Nichols' situation, determining that his activities during his brief tour of duty did not create an appearance of impropriety. The court noted that Nichols acted under the supervision of his superiors and did not use his public position to gain an advantage in his private representation of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the ethical rules should not impose blanket restrictions on reservists, as this would undermine their ability to pursue civilian careers.

The court analyzed the application of the ethical rules to Nichols' situation, determining that his activities during his brief tour of duty did not create an appearance of impropriety.

Conclusion

The court reversed the District Court's order disqualifying Nichols, concluding that his continued representation of the plaintiffs did not violate ethical requirements.

The court reversed the District Court's order disqualifying Nichols, concluding that his continued representation of the plaintiffs did not violate ethical requirements.

Who won?

Roger J. Nichols prevailed in the case because the court found that the ethical rules did not apply to him as a military reservist on active duty for training, and his actions did not create an appearance of impropriety.

Nichols prevailed in the case because the court found that the ethical rules did not apply to him as a military reservist on active duty for training.

You must be