The Court of Appeals in February 2011 ordered Judge Jolly to dissolve Mitchell, Brewer, Richardson, Adams, Burge & Boughman, a law firm organized as a member-managed professional limited liability company. The dissolution was ordered per N.C. Gen. Stat. §57C-6-02, which authorizes judicial dissolution when the managers of the LLC are deadlocked "in the management
The efforts to disqualify Defendants’ counsel were unsuccessful in Atkinson v. Lackey. In denying the motion to disqualify this week, Judge Murphy gave some insight on Rule 1.9 of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 1.9 is titled "Duties to Former Clients." It says that:
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client
The intersection of technology and the rules of ethics continues to develop. The NC State Bar has proposed a new FEO (2012 Formal Ethics Opinion 5), which deals with the interesting question of the attorney-client privilege of an employee’s emails to her personal lawyer that are on her employer’s email system.
If Your …
Sometimes you have a hard time telling who won and who lost a motion ruling. That’s true of Judge Gale’s ruling on Monday in Legalzoom, Inc. v. The North Carolina State Bar, 2012 NCBC 47.
You are all undoubtedly familiar with Legalzoom, an on-line purveyor of do it yourself legal documents. This isn’t the…
If you are making a motion to disqualify opposing counsel before Judge Murphy in the Business Court, his decision yesterday in McKee v. James is likely to be of concern. He not only denied the Motion, but he dropped a few nuggets along the way which the party opposing the motion in your case may…
If you’ve tried cases, you’ve probably had your own witnesses — who you thought were solid — disintegrate in front of you at trial. They start acting quirky, begin conceding important points on direct examination they had held on to at their depositions, and are still facing cross-examination.
What do you do? I can tell…
There’s invariably a fight between lawyers over the division of a fee when a lawyer who left the firm generates a fee at his new firm from a preexisting contingent fee relationship. There’s at least one case of that type in the Business Court (Mitchell, Brewer, Richards, Adams, Burge & Boughman, PLLC v. Brewer…
You probably know that there is a fight afoot between the North Carolina State Bar and the do-it-yourself vendor of legal documents, LegalZoom. The simmering dispute has been covered in the Wall Street Journal, the ABA Journal, and the case is now in the Business Court over Legalzooom’s vitriolic objections. The issue is whether LegalZoom’s offerings constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
LegalZoom bills itself as “transform[ing] the way people think about and fulfill common legal needs.” It says that it has made its mission “to simplify the process and to set new standards for convenience and service in an industry not typically known for great customer care.” The company basically sells legal forms to non-lawyers (and helps its customers to fill them out by computer) which enable them to form their own corporations, write their own wills, and get their own divorces, while at the same time avoiding what LegalZoom condemns as the high cost of attorneys’ fees.
It’s said pretty often that “you get what you pay for,” so it’s not surprising that LegalZoom has taken some heat (like from Consumer Reports) for the quality of its services, even though it advertises that 94% of its customers "recommend LegalZoom to friends and family." The lawyers who provide the same services as those offered by LegalZoom, such as estate planning lawyers, and lawyers filing trademark applications, aren’t keen on the service.
Not much has happened in the Business Court so far, except for LegalZoom’s strident efforts to stay out of the Business Court. Those began with the filing of the case by LegalZoom against the State Bar. LegalZoom immediately asked the Chief Justice of the NC Supreme Court for an exceptional case designation to Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner. That was granted back in October, apparently without notice to the NC Bar. The Bar then designated the case to the Business Court as a mandatory complex business case, which LegalZoom opposed, saying its case was not a " complex business case" within the mandatory jurisdiction of the Business Court.
LegalZoom has lost Round 1. Judge Jolly (who decides all designation motions as the Chief Judge of the Business Court) ruled that the claims made by LegalZoom in its Complaint are squarely within the jurisdiction of the Business Court. Count 1 of the Complaint is for a violation of the Monopoly Clause of the North Carolina Constitution, saying that the State Bar has interfered with LegalZoom’s constitutional right to freely do business in North Carolina. Count 2 says that the State Bar has also violated the state Constitution by excluding LegalZoom from “register[ing] its legally compliant prepaid legal services plan.” (That’s a whole different LegalZoom service). The third count is for “commercial disparagement,” alleging that the State Bar has made false statements to the public which caused the public “to regard [LegalZoom’s] product as legally unauthorized, and imputing illegal conduct to [LegalZoom].”
In opposing the Bar’s designation as a mandatory business case, LegalZoom argued that its case was “exceptional,” but not a “complex business case.” Judge Jolly didn’t spill much ink in denying the Opposition in an Order on January 9th. He said:
Plaintiff’s Complaint specifically alleges that "this case includes claims that involve a material issue relating to . . . [a] anti-monopoly, anti-competition, and antitrust law claims that are not based solely on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; [b] unfair competition law claims that are not based solely on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; and [c] the Internet and electronic commerce." These allegations are substantially identical with three separate statutory grounds for designation of a civil action as a mandatory complex business case under the Removal Statute.
Order ¶3. So that’s that. The case has been assigned to Judge Gale and will be resolved in the Business Court.
Where was the vitriol?Continue Reading We’re Gonna Zoom A Zoom A Zoom in North Carolina
A broadly worded defense in a case challenging the sale of a company resulted in a waiver of the attorney-client and work product privileges last week, in Richardson v. Frontier Spinning Mills, Inc.
Richardson claimed that the company had improperly structured its sale so that non-employee shareholders like him were paid less for their stock…