California: Law Firm allegedly Violates Consumer Protection Laws

In, Patrick Kirk V. First American Title Insurance Company; It started with class actions involving ethical violations including: kick-backs to lenders for referring clients, escrow related fees exceeding state limits, while not giving discounts to clients who qualified for them, and specific fee over-charges (messenger fees, wire transfer fees, and sub escrow fees).

Four years after the litigation began for the class actions, the attorneys representing the First American Title Ins. Company, moved to another law firm. An attorney from their new firm had previously received confidential information about the First American Title Ins. co. cases. When the firm learned of this previous contact regarding the attorney they established an ethical screening around said attorney. Leading to an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which disqualified their firm based on allegations of violating consumer protection laws.

The firm appealed the Superior Courts decision, at which time the Court of Appeals of California, 2nd Appellate District, Division 3, reviewed whether the disqualification was legitimate based on the facts. The outcome of court of appeals decision reversed the order that had disqualified the firm and remanded the case to the trial courts for further proceedings, as per (Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310-E).

(2010). Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co. California: Lexis Nexis. Retrieved August 22, 2010, from LexisNexis (2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 478 ).

In the after-math of these proceedings and while seeking more information I found that By a six to one vote, the California State Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal decision in Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Company (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 776.

(2010). Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://www.lawfirmrisk.com/2010/06/california-supreme-court-upholds.html
legalethicsforum.com
(2010). PATRICK KIRK et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from Lexis Nexis Academic.

District of Columbia: Lawyer Violates Rules of Professional Conduct

In re Stillwell, 980 A.2d 430 (D.C.2009), the District of Columbia Court suspended Garland H. Stillwell for sixty days, with no requirement of indicating the ability to practice law prior to reinstatement, after multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Stillwell admits to violating the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 8.4 (c) and 1.7 (b)(1). The acts of violating these specified rules included inaccurate representation of status at a law firm, false representation, improper charges of personal expenses upon others, working outside the law firm where he was employed and of which the company prohibited, and he took a position on behalf of clients that was unfavorable to a position taken by a client of his firm without consent of all of the parties.
The Hearing Committee Number Eleven of the Board on Professional Responsibility received the facts in the petition, in addition to Stillwell’s own affidavit, and admittance that he did in fact violate the Rules 8.4 (c) and 1.7 (b)(1). Stillwell also made a point to state that he was not coerced into the agreement with the Bar Counsel. He acknowledged that he would have to comply with the requirements put in place by the D.C. Bar R. XI, §14, and Board Rule 9.9. The Committee’s decision was for Stillwell to be suspended from practicing law for sixty days, with no additional requirements prior to reinstatement.