justice_scales_balance_lawyer-scaledLosing a lawsuit can lead to frustration with your attorney, and you might contemplate pursuing a legal malpractice claim against them. However, it is crucial to comprehend the essential elements required to succeed in such a claim; otherwise, your case may face dismissal. The Klein v. Wynne lawsuit examines the importance of meeting all the requirements to prevail in a legal malpractice lawsuit and highlights the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Leverette Klein hired lawyer Vincent Wynne Jr., who worked for Wynne, Goux & Lobello, to provide legal advice and services related to a foreclosure in St. Tammany Parish. Klein claimed he had an assignment of a mortgage note and money judgment recognized a mortgage for a property in Lacombe, Louisiana. Klein said he wanted Sandra Parnell, his ex-girlfriend, removed from the house. Klein told Wynne that Parnell had some of his movable property that she would not return. Wynne resolved the issue and tried to contact Klein to see if he wanted to pursue the foreclosure. Klein claimed that Wynne did not contact him, whereas Wynne claimed Klein was unresponsive. 

Klein fired Wynne as his attorney and hired another attorney. He then learned he would be unable to recover for the mortgage on the property because it was not timely revived under the ten-year period under La. C.C. art. 3501. Leverette Klein brought a legal malpractice against Vincent Wynne Jr., the law firm Wynne, Goux & Lobello, and their insurer, Greenwich Insurance Company. Klein claimed that because of Wynne or his law firm’s failure, he could not foreclose his property and sustained damages. The trial court found that the assignment of the mortgage note was unenforceable when Klein had hired Wynne, so Klein had not proved he had suffered any damages. The trial court dismissed Klein’s legal malpractice claims. Klein appealed the trial court’s judgment.

police_cop_police_uniforms-scaledExperiencing termination from your job is a difficult situation, especially when it feels unjust. Scott Poiencot faced this unfortunate circumstance when he was terminated from his position as a police officer in the Lafayette Police Department, where he had served for several years. As a civil service employee, Louisiana law provided a specific procedure for appealing his termination. This case sheds light on employees’ challenges in challenging an unfair termination. In addition, it emphasizes the importance of seeking legal guidance to understand their rights and navigate the appeals process.

Before his termination, Scott Poiencot had been involved in three different Internal Affairs investigations. The first investigation (AD2012-007) involved a confidential document being removed from a police file and eventually released to the media. It was discovered that a Lieutenant in the police department had removed the document initially and whited out some information before providing it to Poeincot.  The second investigation (AD2012-010) involved Poiencot secretly recording a phone conversation involving a Major in the police department. Poiencot eventually admitted to downloading the conversation, which was released to the media. The third investigation (AD2012-012) involved Poiencot’s refusal to submit to a polygraph as part of the first investigation related to releasing a confidential document. His termination letter referenced all three prior investigations with which he was involved. 

After his termination, Poiencot appealed to the Lafayette Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board (the “Board”). The Board voted 5-0 to uphold his termination, finding it was made for cause and in good faith. The Board then issued a final judgment. 

s1_p_1504_vintage-scaledEveryone knows that evidence is an essential part of winning any lawsuit. However, how do you go about finding relevant evidence? If you are involved in a lawsuit, you are entitled to discovery to obtain information pertinent to your claims and help defend yourself. However, discovery is not limitless. Instead, numerous restrictions are imposed to ensure that parties cannot go on fishing expeditions. It is essential to understand these restrictions, especially when seeking information involving personal data such as medical records. 

The family of Kenneth Scully sued Dr. Derrick Dean for medical malpractice after Scully died after he was admitted to the emergency room where Dean had been working. Scully’s family and Dean settled for $450,000 before a medical review panel was convened. After the settlement, Dean sued the law firm he had retained to represent him, Gachassin Law Firm. 

Gachassin tried to compel the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy (the “Board”) to disclose information regarding Dean’s access to an online database concerning Scully, including Dean’s login and search history. The database contained information about dispensing controlled substances. Gachassin argued this information could help show inconsistencies with the times Dean claimed to have accessed the database. The trial court ruled in favor of Gachassin on its motion to compel. The Board appealed. 

prison_fence_razor_ribbon_0-scaledFiling a claim in court requires careful consideration of the appropriate time frame, as it can significantly impact the success of a lawsuit. This is particularly crucial when dealing with actions such as false arrest and false imprisonment, where prescription periods play a significant role. 

In a noteworthy case involving Marlon Eaglin, Powell, Deontrey Moten, and David Little, who were charged with attempted murder, the defendants’ release led to the filing of a petition for false arrest and false imprisonment. However, the defendants raised an exception of prescription, arguing that the claims had exceeded the prescribed time limit. This case is a stark reminder of the importance of understanding and adhering to the applicable time frame when seeking justice in court.

An attempted murder charge was brought against Marlon Eaglin, Powell, Deontrey Moten, and David Little by the Eunice Police Department. The defendants were arrested on May 4, 2015, and released on August 21, 2015. 

prison_jail_cell_cell_0-scaledBringing a lawsuit against one’s employer can be a daunting prospect, particularly when fears of retaliation loom large. However, it is essential to recognize that federal law offers safeguards to employees who pursue legal action under Title VII, including cases involving claims of sexual harassment. By delving into the provisions outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000–3(a), we gain insight into the protective measures afforded to individuals in such circumstances. It is important to note, however, that having previously filed a lawsuit related to sexual harassment does not automatically shield an employee from potential adverse employment consequences. 

In the case of Jennifer Paul, a correctional officer at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, her experience sheds light on the intricate interplay between prior lawsuits, retaliation, and the burden of proof required to establish a causal link. As we examine the complexities of her situation, we delve into the multifaceted nature of employment law and the need for legal counsel to navigate potential claims against employers.

Jennifer Paul was a correctional officer at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (“Hunt”) in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. While working there, she filed a lawsuit against Hunt, claiming that other correctional officers had sexually harassed her. She received a confidential settlement and returned to her position. 

child_stones_bank_out-scaledDivorce, though unpleasant in the short term, allows families to rearrange their relationship to better serve the interests of all parties. One primary consideration in any divorce is the children. The children’s health, safety, and well-being becomes a key concern for both the families and the courts when a family enters into a divorce. When parents get divorced, the court determines who assumes the tutorship of the child. The parent who is awarded this tutorship assumes all of the rights and responsibilities of raising the child, including the right to file a lawsuit in the child’s name. 

A person entrusted with the tutorship of a child can bring lawsuits in that child’s name that best serve the child’s interests. For an example, look to the case of Felisha Myers, mother of Brittany, who brought a lawsuit in Brittany’s name against the father of Brittany, Ricky Klump. Myers and Brittany alleged that Klump had injured Brittany on a road trip by repeatedly punching Brittany. The Fifteenth Judicial District Court entered a default judgment against Klump, awarding Brittany financial compensation for her pain and suffering and past and future medical bills. 

Klump appealed the default judgment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that Myer did not have the right to file the suit in Brittany’s name. Klump argued the record of the trial court did not have the necessary documentation to prove that Myer has the tutorship of Brittany, therefore, Myer could not file the lawsuit in Brittany’s name.

courthouse_court_law_justice-scaledAll relevant evidence in a case should be produced at trial. However, the evidence included in a complete record can be subjective. Thus, the parties to a lawsuit should rely on the court’s definition of what a complete medical record consists of. 

Christina Dauzat (Dauzat) was involved in a car accident where she was rear-ended by Erin Wright (Wright). Dauzat filed a lawsuit, and a bench trial was held, which favored Dauzat and awarded damages of $17,741.51, with interest. Wright, State Farm, and Dauzat appealed the ruling.

At the beginning of the bench trial, Dauzat’s counsel introduced authorized exhibits: Exhibit D-1-6, which consisted of medical records from various hospitals. At trial, Dauzat introduced medical records and bills she believed were essential to the case, which was agreed upon at the pretrial conference. These records were classified as Exhibit P-4. State Farm had agreed to the authenticity of the bills. Therefore, the records, Exhibit P-4, were admitted into evidence. State Farm complained that Dauzat’s medical records did not contain the entire certified copies; consequently, they wanted to introduce full copies of Dauzat’s medical records. State Farm claimed Dauzat had personal bias as to which records she included.

bookcase_law_firm_attorney_1-scaledIn some cases, mistakes in following procedure can harm a plaintiff’s cause of action even if the case otherwise may be successful on the merits. For example, legal malpractice cases in Louisiana must be filed within one year from when the plaintiff knew or should have known that malpractice had occurred. A recent case out of the Parish of East Baton Rouge has outlined when a plaintiff is considered to have some notice of legal malpractice. 

Satterfield & Pontikes (S&P) was a general contractor for the construction of the Lawrence D. Crocker Elementary School in New Orleans, known as the Croker project. The Recovery School District (RSD) owned the property, and Jacobs Project Management Company/CSRS Consortium (Jacobs) acted as the project manager. Norman Chenevert and Chenevert Architects, LLC (Chenevert) and Julien Engineering & Consulting, Inc. (Julien), the sub-consultant structural engineers, created the plans and specifications for the project. In addition, S&P met with Murphy J. Foster, III, a partner at the Breazeale Sachse & Wilson (BSW) law firm, to represent them regarding a previous project S&P worked as a general contractor for. One of the other BSW partners, Steven Loeb, has represented Chenevert previously and had been representing them in connection with the Crocker Project. 

Professional ethics rules required BSW to advise S&P and Chenevert on the potential for conflict and to receive a written waiver from both clients. The Chief Financial Officer of S&P, Laura Pontikes, signed the waiver. In contrast, Chenevert terminated its client-lawyer relationship with Leob, and its file regarding the Crocker Project was returned to the company. 

project_366_138_170512-scaledAlthough you may be excited if you are awarded damages at trial, your award might still face a challenge on appeal. Therefore, when you are involved in a trial for an accident in which you were harmed, it is important to understand what evidence you need to present so that any money you are awarded can survive a challenge on appeal. 

While driving a Honda Accord in Ascension Parish, Louisiana, Juliet All was hit by a Chevrolet Silverado Austin Tynes was driving after he did not stop at a stop sign. As a result, All’s vehicle was knocked into a ditch. All received medical treatment at St. Elizabeth Hospital and was diagnosed with chest pain and neck strain. When her pain did not go away, she went to an orthopedic surgeon for treatment, who diagnosed her with whiplash and cervical spine injury, including injury to her soft tissue. 

All filed a lawsuit against Tynes and Safeco Insurance Company, who insured him. The parties agreed that Tynes was solely responsible for the accident and had insurance coverage from Safeco when the accident occurred. They also stipulated that All’s damages would not exceed $50,000. At trial, All was awarded $66,000 in damages. This was reduced to $50,000 because of the parties’ stipulation. Safeco and Tynes appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding All $50,000 in general damages because her injuries were minimal and of short duration. 

hammer_court_justice_book-scaledWhen you receive a final judgment from the trial court, you focus on the case’s outcome. However, if you want to appeal that judgment, it is essential to understand what language is needed in the final judgment to appeal it. If this language is not included, you might be in a situation similar to Marvin Beaulieu, whose appeal was dismissed.

Beaulieu had a membership at the Autocrat Social and Pleasure Club. His membership was terminated. After his membership was terminated, Beaulieu filed a lawsuit arguing that he suffered from a loss of reputation, fellowship, opportunity, business opportunities, emotional distress, and embarrassment as a result of his membership termination. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order valid for six days. In response, Autocrat Social and Pleasure Club filed papers arguing that there had been insufficient service and there was no cause or right of action in the lawsuit and moved to dissolve the lawsuit. 

The trial court held a hearing, where it determined that Beaulieu was not entitled to damages and denied his request for an injunction. Beauliue appealed the denial of his request for an injunction under La. C.C.P. art. 3601

Contact Information