Malpractice claim against criminal defense lawyers whose client was convicted in a first trial the verdict of which was overturned for IAC, and acquitted in a second trial on a weak circumstantial case survives summary judgment. See Legal Profession Blog. Correia v. Fagin, SJC-10084 (Mass. Aug. 5, 2008):

The government's evidence regarding Correia's role in the setting of the fire was, as the Federal judge described it, a "patchwork of circumstantial evidence" that, as is apparent from the evidence at the second trial, was largely based on two highly disputable premises: first, that Correia was suffering from severe financial woes and set the fire to recover insurance money; and, second, that Correia purposefully disarmed his fire alarm, resulting in much greater damage to the property. The testimony of defense witnesses at the second trial seriously questioned, if not flatly refuted, both premises. In addition, Correia testified at the first trial and at his deposition in this proceeding that he played no role in setting the fire.

In this posture, the question to be resolved is whether to credit the circumstantial evidence suggesting Correia's guilt, or the evidence suggesting his innocence. That determination is a "factual one, properly delegated to the jury ... rather than being decided by a judge ... based on the judge's impression of how guilty or innocent the plaintiff appears to be." Hicks v. Nunnery, 253 Wis. 2d 721, 755 (Ct. App. 2002). Where questions of triable fact remain, "the determination of actual innocence is rooted in the goal of reliable factfinding," best left to the jury. Salisbury v. County of Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th 756, 765 (2005).

4. Conclusion. Because we conclude that the defendants have failed to establish that Correia has no reasonable likelihood of establishing that he was actually innocent of the criminal charges, we vacate the allowance of their motions for summary judgment. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Supplementary Guidelines for the Mitigation Function of Defense Teams In Death Penalty Cases have been published in 36 Hofstra L. Rev. 677 (2008).

A Washington municipal court judge who apparently bragged at a party about having an affair with a public defender in that court was disciplined by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, according to the Seattle Times.

According to a statement released by the judicial commission, Hartl's behavior at the holiday party she hosted and her participation in an intimate relationship with a lawyer who appeared before her as counsel failed to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

The commission further said that Hartl's integrity was damaged by her attempts after the party to manage the damage of her unguarded talk and mislead the commission.

A Massachusetts DA was charged with a courthouse sexual assault on a witness, according to the Boston Globe.

Not just consensual sex, but assault. The former is bad enough.

Virgina proposes a rule requiring mandatory malpractice insurance, according to a Virginia State Bar press release. The proposed rule is here.