Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Professional Malpractice & Ethics

By
Plaintiff brought this legal malpractice action for himself and three other individuals for whom he served as attorney in fact (collectively, Plaintiff). Plaintiff named as defendants an attorney and the firm at which the attorney practiced at the time the alleged malpractice occurred (collectively, Attorney), claiming that Attorney negligently failed to obtain signatures on a guaranty for a loan that Plaintiff made to a third party and failed to inform Plaintiff of the missing signatures. When the third party defaulted on the loan, Plaintiff could not obtain a judgment against the intended guarantors for the full amount of the third party’s obligation. A jury returned a general verdict for Attorney. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, concluding that plain error permeating the proceedings. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order sustaining Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment for Attorney, holding that the district court incorrectly concluded that plain error permeated the trial and thus abused its discretion in sustaining Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. View "Balames v. Ginn" on Justia Law

By
Appellant retained Attorney to represent him in several actions, including an action to obtain disability benefits from the city of Omaha. Appellant’s application for benefits was denied. Before an appeal or request for a rehearing were filed, Appellant terminated his relationship with Attorney. Appellant then filed suit against Attorney for professional malpractice. The district court granted Attorney's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Appellant never directed Attorney to file an appeal and that Attorney had properly preserved the record such that an appeal would have been possible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s contention that Attorney failed to investigate and preserve the record for appellate purposes was without merit; (2) Appellant failed to produce evidence to show Attorney's actions in failing to file an appeal constituted neglect or that Appellant was harmed; and (3) the district court did not err in refusing to allow expert testimony on the issue of whether Attorney committed malpractice. View "Harris v. O'Connor" on Justia Law

By
Plaintiffs, relatives of Decedent, sought Attorney's services in the administration of Decedent's estate. Plaintiffs later brought this professional negligence case against Attorney and his firm (Defendants), claiming that Attorney failed properly to disclose a conflict of interest to Plaintiffs, Attorney erroneously advised Plaintiffs to execute disclaimers that should be regarded as invalid and ineffective, and Attorney caused the estate to incur additional taxes by failing to include the purportedly disclaimed property in the qualified terminable interest property election on the estate tax return. The district court (1) entered judgment in favor of Defendants on the conflict of interest claim, and (2) dismissed as time barred Plaintiffs' claims regarding the disclaimed property and associated tax return elections. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment regarding the conflict of interest; but (2) reversed the judgments on Plaintiffs' remaining claims, holding that the district court erred when it concluded that the statute of limitations barred the claims. Remanded. View "Guinn v. Murray" on Justia Law

By
This was the second appeal in this case. Doctor, who was licensed to practice medicine in Nebraska and Washington, entered into an assurance of compliance with the Attorney General due to unprofessional conduct. The assurance of compliance was made part of Doctor's public record. Consequently, Doctor alleged that the Washington Department of Health learned via public record of the assurance of compliance and initiated a disciplinary action against him. Doctor was also made ineligible with the American Board of Family Medicine. Doctor filed a complaint against the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General alleging that the Attorney General fraudulently and negligently misrepresented the adverse effects of the assurance of compliance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding the misrepresentation claims to be contract claims subject to, and barred by, the State Contract Claims Act (Act). Doctor again appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Doctor's claims were subject to, and barred by, the Act. View "Zawaideh v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law