(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a judgment in favor of taxpayers in a tax refund action. Remanded with instructions to dismiss because the taxpayers had not filed a timely claim for a refund with the Internal Revenue Service, in this case involving the so-called mailbox rule.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Appeals court affirmed district court's decision that the federal tax lien was enforceable even though it had errors on the document. The appeals court held that even with the errors there was adequate notice of the lien, because it conformed to the IRS code.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the validity of a Treasury Department regulation. The provision's focus is that related business entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements. Reversed the judgment of the U.S. Tax Court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a business owner's lawsuit accusing a certified public accountant of professional negligence. Held that the statute of limitations did not bar this suit concerning alleged erroneous tax advice about how to structure a business deal. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld federal tax penalties imposed on a company for failing to disclose its participation in a so-called listed transaction. Affirmed summary judgment against the company's tax refund claim, unpersuaded by procedural due process and other arguments.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Tax Court improperly dismissed a case involving a man's application to the IRS for a whistleblower award because although his application was untimely the filing period was not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when trial counsel failed to challenge his competency to waive counsel. Defendant’s due process right was not violated by state trial court’s refusal to hold a competency hearing sua sponte. Defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated by being shackled and restrained during trial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. District court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification met the predominance requirement of FRCP 23(b)(3). Plaintiff’s proposed damages model was consistent with his theory of liability, where cost-of-repair damages could be used in claims arising from a defective hydraulic clutch system.

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded. The Tax Court abused its discretion in denying a whistleblower award to an anonymous informant. Remanded to consider whether the appellant had made out a fact-specific basis for protecting his identity.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs bought shares in a company that invests in government bonds. Plaintiffs contend that the dividends they received are exempt from taxation per the California Constitution. The trial court disagreed, and the appellate court upheld the ruling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Amazon filed a petition challenging the IRS’s valuation of assets. The panel concluded that the definition of “intangible” does not include residual-business assets, and that the definition is limited to independently transferrable assets.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an ethics and professional responsibility action, arising out of a dispute between class plaintiffs over conflicts of interest among class counsel, the district court's rejection of the motion to disqualify counsel is affirmed where California does not apply a rule of automatic disqualification for conflicts of simultaneous representation in the class action context and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel will adequately represent the class.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a habeas corpus action, the district court's dismissal of the petition as untimely is: 1) affirmed where petitioner failed to establish entitlement to F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) relief for actual innocence; but 2) reversed where the district court abused its discretion by finding that petitioner was not abandoned by his counsel, who failed to respond to the court's order to show cause and notify his client of the order's issuance.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, brought by plaintiff attorney challenging California's procedures for attorney discipline, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's as-applied challenge is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; 2) plaintiff's facial claims were not time-barred because the State Bar misread the relevant circuit precedent concerning the statute-of-limitations; 3) plaintiff's facial claims have already been rejected by the Supreme Court of California and plaintiff received adequate notice and opportunity for a hearing; and 4) California's decision to regulate lawyers principally through the State Bar of California is constitutional.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by an estate administrator seeking to disqualify counsel of a party, contending disqualification was required because counsel at issue improperly obtained copies of privileged communications between estate principal and his attorney and used those communications to oppose another party's summary adjudication motion in this case, the trial court's denial of motion to disqualify is reversed and remanded to determine whether the receipt and use of the privileged communications by counsel warrants disqualification.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a challenge to a N.Y. Judiciary Law section 470, which requires nonresident attorneys to maintain an 'office for the transaction of law business' within New York State in order to practice law in that state's courts, the District Court's judgment declaring section 470 unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, is reversed where the law does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it was enacted not for a protectionist purpose to favor New York resident attorneys but, rather, to provide a means whereby nonresidents could establish a physical presence in the state akin to that of residents, thereby resolving a service concern while allowing nonresidents to practice law in the state's courts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's dismissal with prejudice of complaint for personal injuries during jury trial, as a sanction for plaintiff's counsel's repeated violations of its orders excluding hearsay and opinion testimony, is affirmed where the trial court was within its discretion in granting the terminating sanction and did not err when it granted defendants' motions in limine because attorney is an officer of the court and he or she must respect and follow court orders, whether they are right or wrong, People v. Pigage (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1374, Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(b).

(California Court of Appeal) - In a labor and employment action, arising over a former, female firefighter's claims of harassment and discrimination against the City of Petaluma, the trial court's discovery orders are reversed where: 1) outside counsel's pure fact-finding role in the prelitigation investigation constituted legal services in anticipation of litigation and is privileged; and 2) defendant employer did not waive attorney-client privilege by asserting an avoidable consequences defense under the circumstances.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a challenge to the conditions placed on the privilege of admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Local Rule 701, the District Court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where Rule 701 violates neither the Constitution nor federal law.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an attorney's appeal of a probate judgment invalidating a will and living trust that he drafted for a client and which named him as the principal beneficiary to a $5 million estate, the trial court's judgment and award of attorney fees pursuant to Probate Code section 21380 is affirmed where: 1) the court reasonably concluded that the probative value of the prior acts evidence substantially outweighed the potential for prejudice; 2) substantial evidence supports the finding that appellant drafted or transcribed decedent's Trust even though the original trust document was 'lost' in a burglary; and 3) the court reasonably concluded it would be inequitable to award defendant trustee fees and attorney fees for services that benefited no one other than defendant.

(United States First Circuit) - In an ethics action, the district court's order of sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(b)(2) against debtor's attorney, ordering him to enroll in a one-semester class on legal ethics or professional responsibility at an ABA accredited law school, is affirmed where it was not an abuse of discretion to order such a sanction following the attorney's multiple misstatements of the law.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Convictions against defendant, an attorney convicted of money laundering while representing a client charged with receiving stolen property, are affirmed where: 1) the prosecutor's failure to correct a grand jury witnesses' false testimony as to his motives for cooperating and failure to disclose impeachment evidence to the grand jury do not constitute structural error requiring automatic reversal; and 2) the prosecution's ex parte request that the district court decide in camera whether the government witness's informant activity needed to be disclosed at trial was not improper.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an administrative law action challenging the trial court's order that communications between the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and its general counsel, concerning whether to seek injunctive relief against Gerawan Farming, Inc. over complaints of unfair labor practices, must be disclosed under the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6251, the order is reversed where the Board's internal communications concerning its prosecution of Gerawan Farming are protected by attorney-client privilege.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for a writ of mandamus to force the district court to admit an attorney it had previously denied admission pro hac vice in the high-profile criminal trial of Cliven Bundy, the District Court's denial is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion, as there are a litany of reasons for denying the attorney's pro hac vice status.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a putative class action challenging on First Amendment grounds New York's rules, regulations, and statutes prohibiting non‐attorneys from investing in law firms, alleging that the infusions of additional capital which the regulations now prevent would enable plaintiffs to improve the quality of the legal services that they offer and at the same time to reduce their fees, expanding their ability to serve needy clients, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs fail to allege the infringement of any cognizable constitutional right.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an environmental action, challenging defendant city's finding that a project was exempt from formal environmental review, the trial court's grant of mandatory relief to plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is reversed where: 1) such relief is limited to default, default judgments, and dismissal; and 2) the trial court's grant of judgment to defendant after plaintiff counsel failed to prepare and lodge the administrative record as stipulated does not fall within either category.

(California Court of Appeal) - In defendants' petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate both its order finding real-party-in-interest did not waive the attorney-client privilege as it applied to an e-mail inadvertently turned over during discovery, and the court's order disqualifying a law firm from representing defendants in the underlying lawsuits, the petition is denied where, regardless of how the attorney obtained the documents, whenever a reasonably competent attorney would conclude the documents obviously or clearly appear to be privileged and it is reasonably apparent they were inadvertently disclosed, the State Fund rule requires the attorney to review the documents no more than necessary to determine whether they are privileged, notify the privilege holder the attorney has documents that appear to be privileged, and refrain from using the documents until the parties or the court resolves any dispute about their privileged nature.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a writ proceeding to determine whether attorney work conduct privilege attaches to documents created by an attorney employee during their employment with an employer law firm, the lower court's judgment is vacated where the privilege attaches to the firm, rather than the employee.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a criminal case in which defendant was advised by counsel to plead guilty to possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute, an 'aggravated felony' that subjected defendant to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(B), the sentence and conviction are vacated where defendant has demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel's erroneous advice that he would not be deported as a result of pleading guilty.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the appeal of a judge convicted of 21 counts of public-corruption-related offenses, finding that subsequent decisions narrowing the interpretation of an 'official act' within the meaning of the federal bribery statute did not result in a plain error in the district court's instructions at trial.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing the pre-discovery dismissal of a wrongful termination claim filed by an in-house patent attorney against their former employer, L'Oreal, alleging that he was terminated for his refusal to violate ethical rules on their behalf because, as the court put it, his allegations were more than skin-deep.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of a petition arguing that the petitioner's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when they conceded that charges were timely under the applicable statute of limitations before the trial where they were convicted of sexually abusing their daughter, but the court felt that counsel's decision to forego statutes of limitations arguments was not objectively unreasonable.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of habeas corpus to a petitioner challenging his conviction for crimes involving the robbery and murder of a man in a Las Vegas jewelry store that resulted in the death penalty because a combination of prosecutorial misconduct and woefully inadequate assistance of counsel produced an extreme malfunction in the state criminal justice system.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an ethics case, the bankruptcy court's order to vacate a default judgment against the debtor after finding that plaintiffs' attorney, Max Folkenflik, intentionally deceived the court in omitting to inform it of a relevant settlement agreement is affirmed where Folkenflik's misconduct constituted a fraud on the court.

(United States First Circuit) - In a civil procedure action, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's case after his attorney failed to appear at a scheduled motion hearing is reversed for abuse of discretion where there was no suggestion of intentional failure to appear, no prior neglect by counsel to appear, the district court gave no notice that failure to appear would result in dismissal with prejudice, and plaintiff's claims would be left without a single merits determination.

(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trail court's denial of a motion for a new trial in the case of a serially absent defendant who had secured an opportunity to have his motion heard due to the ineffective assistance of counsel upon the motion's first presentation, but when he failed to appear for the new hearing, represented by the same lawyer as previously, the court held that the lawyer's previous ineffective assistance afforded sufficient grounds for the appointment of a new lawyer, but that the trial court needn't do so unless and until the defendant requested.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing and remanding a claim of wrongful foreclosure in a case arising out of a contentious set of circumstances in which an attorney initiated foreclosure proceedings against a former client who filed a prior action alleging legal malpractice and other wrongdoing, characterizing the loan securing the property as usurious because prior demurrers did not bar the action and did not contravene the rule against splitting a cause of action.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of a bail surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond in a case where a defendant charged with drug trafficking offenses fled the country and was barred from reentry on account of the pending charges because the trial court may not grant a motion to vacate the forfeiture on a ground not asserted and on evidence not presented until after the appearance period has expired.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Determining that the sentencing court in a criminal case did not plainly err in designating a defendant a career offender did not mean that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to that designation because the standards for review of the decisions do not necessarily result in equivalent outcomes, but that in the present case the failure to do so resulted in ineffective assistance and the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacating a district court judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and affirming the denial of other forms of relief challenging the conviction and death sentence for first degree murder because although there were representation issues relating to sentencing the deficiencies were not prejudicial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus as to the guilt phase claims relating to first degree murder, vacating the convictions and remanding because if counsel had performed effectively by investigating and presenting evidence of the defendant's diminished mental capacity defense based on mental impairment there was a reasonable probability at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt about his ability to form the requisite mental state for first degree murder.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.