Too Aggressive Representation?

A recent panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision which should put attorneys on guard for any contrivances with clients to avoid the payment of a judgment.  In an unpublished decision, Janssen v Lommen Abdo, issued December 22, 2014, the court of appeals reversed the district court and held that the plaintiff could maintain a cause of action against the law firm representing the other side for its part in creating a transfer which violated the Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act. 

Acknowledging that an attorney acting within the scope of his employment as an attorney is normally immune from liability to third persons for actions arising out of that professional relationship, the decision cited a number of Minnesota cases which held that a cause of action would exist where the attorney "knowingly participates with his client in the perpetuation of a fraudulent or unlawful act."