ALI-ABA Course of Study Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts

Similar documents
BEFORE THE SEVENTH DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR

MISCONDUCT BY ATTORNEYS OR PARTY REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB)

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT NO. C PETITION OF MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

John Blum, Acting General Counsel Executive Office for Immigration Review 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600 Falls Church, VA 22041

Don t Leave Without Your Ethics. Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC

Case 1:14-cv RMB-JS Document 38 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 241

Fundamentals of Civil Litigation in Federal Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,970. In the Matter of JARED WARREN HOLSTE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

DISCIPLINARY PROCESS of the VIRGINIA STATE BAR

DANGER ZONE: THE NO CONTACT RULE IN CONDEMNATION LITIGATION

LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B

Submitted April 9, 2018 Decided April 23, 2018 Remanded by Supreme Court November 2, 2018 Resubmitted December 21, 2018 Decided January 15, 2019

Report of the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO OPINION

Friday 6th February, 2004.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION

Award FINRA Dispute Resolution

No. 106,962 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. In the Matter of the Marriage of. JULIE A. BERGMANN, Appellee, and

Getting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims. Jay Skukowski

People v. Alster. 07PDJ056. March 12, Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Respondent

People v. Crews, 05PDJ049. March 6, Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Respondent

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INDEX. . accountants and actuaries, negligence, . but-for test, factual causation.. but for test, material contribution test, 22-23

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 07-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No.

JUDICIAL DISCLOSURE AND DISQUALIFICATION: THE NEED FOR MORE GUIDANCE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/ :11 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARL S.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied May 8, 1990 COUNSEL

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

Case 4:14-cv CW Document 127 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 52 Filed: 10/07/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1366

RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS

ETHICS IN EMINENT DOMAIN: THE NO CONTACT RULE VARIATIONS ON A THEME

MSPB Advocacy TABLE OF CONTENTS. A. Introduction And Overview To Representing The Agency Before The MSPB. 3. Other Relevant Statutes And Regulations

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Cohen v Kachroo 2013 NY Slip Op 30416(U) February 22, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Eileen A.

People v. Ringler. 12PDJ087. June 21, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Victoria Lynne Ringler (Attorney

Employer Liability and Title VII: Recent U.S. Supreme Court Guidance on Supervisor Conduct and Retaliation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

Accountancy Scheme Sanctions Guidance

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

2. Denies knowledge and information suffrcient to form a belief with respect to

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. No Filed May 1, 2015 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,

Index of Subjects. Created by: Neil Savage, JD Legal Publications Editor/Indexer th Ave NE Seattle, WA

[Cite as State ex rel. Gobich v. Indus. Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 585, 2004-Ohio-5990.]

Administrative Sanctions: imposing warnings and fines

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

EXPLORING RECENT CHANGES TO ABA MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

SECTION 2 BEFORE FILING SUIT

WORKING WITH CLIENTS AND TRIAL COUNSEL IN DEPENDENCY APPEALS. By Jonathan D. Soglin 1 Staff Attorney, First District Appellate Project May, 2001

FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/27/ :26 PM

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 12-CV-5162 ORDER

The SEC proposes to codify the rule as a new Part 205 to Chapter 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

How to Draft Pleadings in a Civil Case

FILED: NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK 02/15/ :54 PM INDEX NO. E157285/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2017

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 22, 2007

January 2018 RULES OF THE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

v. Docket No Cncv RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

HEALTH CARE LIABILITY UPDATE, 2014

COUNSEL JUDGES. Hendley, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: WILLIAM W. BIVINS, Judge, A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge AUTHOR: HENDLEY OPINION

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO APRIL TERM, 1996

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

1 California Procedure (5th), Attorneys

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the. This matter was before us on a certification of default filed

Utah Court Rules on Trial Motions Francis J. Carney

OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Filip Factors and The Yates Memo

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. vs. No. 31,783. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY James Waylon Counts, District Judge

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: HILLIARD CHARLES FAZANDE III DOCKET NO. 18-DB-055 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 37 INTRODUCTION

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRO BONO LAWYERS Prepared by Attorney Patricia Zeeh Risser LEGAL ACTION OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Filing # E-Filed 01/22/ :58:37 PM

Ethics for Municipal Attorneys

Case 3:17-cv L Document 25 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID 171

[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]

People v. Jerold R. Gilbert. 17PDJ044. January 8, 2018.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party

FORMAL OPINION NO Conflicts of Interest: Former State Appellate Public Defender in Private Practice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Docket No. 26,646 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 August 16, 2001, Filed

Supreme Court of Florida

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT LD IN THE MATTER OF Paul W. Bruzga, Esquire

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

Plaintiff, : : : : John Sgaliordich is an individual investor who alleges that various investment

People v. Espinoza, No. 00PDJ044 (consolidated with 00PDJ051) 1/30/01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge ( PDJ ) and Hearing

Case 1:17-cv JB-KBM Document 14 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

How Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False Claims Act Memo

Transcription:

1741 ALI-ABA Course of Study Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts Sponsored with the cooperation of the Federal Judicial Center July 11-13, 2007 Santa Fe, New Mexico Sanctions in Civil Litigation: A Review of Sanctions by Rule, Statute, and Inherent Power By David F. Herr Nicole Narotzky Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota

1742 2

1743 Sanctions In Civil Litigation: A Review of Sanctions by Rule, Statute, and Inherent Power 1 David F. Herr and Nicole Narotzky TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW... 1 II. ANALYTIC OVERVIEW... 1 III. STATE COURT SANCTIONS... 2 IV. RULE 11: PLEADINGS, WRITTEN MOTIONS AND OTHER PAPERS... 3 A. TEXT OF RULE... 3 B. VALIDITY... 5 C. SCOPE... 5 1. Courts... 5 a. Appeals Court... 5 b. Removed Proceedings... 6 c. Arbitration... 8 d. Effect of Bankruptcy Stay on Rule 11 Motion.... 8 2. Proceedings... 8 a. Criminal Cases... 8 b. Habeas Corpus and Related Proceedings... 8 c. Securities Fraud Cases... 8 3. Proscribed Conduct: Presenting to the Court a Violative Paper... 9 a. Presenting.... 9 b. Later Advocating.... 9 c. By Whom Present[ed].... 10 d. Relationship to Other Powers.... 10 e. Unpresented Sanctions Motions.... 10 4. Sanctionable Papers: Pleadings, Written Motions and Other Papers.... 10 a. Pleadings and Motions... 10 b. Other Papers... 11 1 These materials are derived in significant part and updated from materials prepared by Gregory P. Joseph, Esq., of Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices, LLC, New York, for the Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts course presented on December 9, 1999 and entitled Sanctions: Rules 11, 26(g), 30(d), and 37, 1927, Inherent Power, Appellate Rule 38, and 1912. These materials were originally based in part on GREGORY J. JOSEPH, SANCTIONS: THE FEDERAL LAW OF LITIGATION ABUSE (2d ed. 1994; Supp. 2005). 2 Internal pagination.

1744 c. Excluded Papers... 12 5. Persons Liable... 12 a. Vicarious Liability.... 12 b. Predecessor and Successor Counsel Liability... 15 6. Proper Movant.... 15 D. BASIC REQUIREMENTS... 15 1. Signing Requirement.... 15 2. Presenting Requirement... 15 3. Reading Requirement.... 16 4. Certification.... 16 a. Objective Standard for Testing Certification... 16 b. Time of Testing Certification.... 16 c. Presumptive Validity of Certification... 16 d. No Continuing Obligation to Correct or Withdraw... 16 e. Rule Is Not a Rule of Strict Liability.... 17 E. REASONABLE INQUIRY (1): GENERAL DUTY TO INVESTIGATE FACT AND LAW... 17 1. Generally... 17 a. Fact vs. Law... 17 b. Cost-Justified Standard.... 17 c. No First Amendment Defense.... 17 2. Timing of Investigation.... 17 3. Objective Standard... 17 a. Generally... 17 b. Represented Parties... 18 c. Pro Se Litigants.... 18 d. Ex Parte Proceedings.... 18 F. REASONABLE INQUIRY (2): INQUIRY INTO FACT... 19 1. Factors Generally... 19 a. Time Pressure.... 19 b. Factual or Legal Complexity.... 19 c. Feasibility... 19 d. Accessibility of Data... 19 e. Personal Knowledge.... 19 f. Reliance on Client... 19 g. Prior Pendency of Action... 20 h. Reliance on Other Counsel.... 20 i. Available Resources.... 21 j. Warnings of Factual Baselessness; Refiling Deficient Papers.... 21 k. Fiduciary Status.... 21 l. Not Credibility Assessments by Counsel... 21 2. Pro Se Status... 22 G. EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT... 22 1. Generally... 22 2. Merely Losing on the Merits... 22 ii

1745 3. Litigable Issues of Fact.... 22 4. Isolated Factual Errors; Papers As a Whole.... 22 5. Inferences vs. Speculation; Information-and-Belief Pleading.... 23 6. Unfounded or Untrue Statements.... 23 7. Omissions; Duty of Candor.... 23 H. REASONABLE INQUIRY (3): INQUIRY INTO LAW... 23 1. Factors Generally... 23 a. Time Pressure.... 23 b. Factual or Legal Complexity.... 23 c. Clarity or Ambiguity of Law.... 23 d. Plausibility; Citing Adverse Authority.... 23 e. Knowledge, Experience and Expertise; Need to Retain Expert.... 23 f. Prior Pendency of Action... 24 g. Reliance on Client... 24 h. Reliance on Other Counsel.... 24 i. Available Resources.... 24 j. Warnings of Legal Baselessness; Refiling Deficient Papers.... 24 k. Fiduciary Status.... 25 2. Recent Changes in the Law... 25 3. Pro Se Status... 25 a. Attorneys Appearing Pro Se.... 25 b. Lawyers Opposing Pro Se Litigants.... 25 I. WARRANTED BY EXISTING LAW... 26 1. Generally... 26 2. Merely Losing on the Merits... 26 3. Litigable Issues of Law... 26 4. Unasserted Meritorious Arguments... 26 5. Isolated Unwarranted Positions; Paper as a Whole.... 26 6. Judicial Endorsement of Position.... 26 a. Losing Case Below.... 27 b. Winning Case Below.... 27 c. Merit Recognized Elsewhere... 27 d. Arbitration and ADR.... 27 e. Defeating Summary Judgment... 27 f. Defeating Dismissal Motion.... 27 g. Subsequent Change in the Law... 28 7. Misrepresentation of Law.... 28 8. No Requirement to Identify Arguments for Change in Law... 28 9. Failure to Cite Adverse Precedent.... 28 10. Susceptibility to Affirmative Defense.... 28 J. WARRANTED BY A NONFRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT FOR CHANGE IN THE LAW... 28 1. Objective Standard... 28 2. Factors... 28 a. Supporting Arguments: Was A Change Advocated?... 28 iii

1746 b. Discussion of Existing Law and Adverse Precedent.... 28 c. Clarity or Ambiguity of Law.... 29 d. Nature of the Case... 29 e. Risk of Chilling Zealous Advocacy... 29 K. IMPROPER PURPOSE... 29 1. Objective Standard vs. Subjective Focus... 29 a. Presenter s Subjective Intent.... 30 b. Subjective Effect on Opponent... 30 c. Abusive Language.... 30 2. What Purpose is Improper?... 30 a. Generally... 30 b. Mixed Purposes.... 31 3. Ill-Motivated Meritorious Positions.... 31 L. PERMISSIVE NATURE OF SANCTIONS... 31 1. Generally... 31 2. Securities Fraud Actions... 32 3. Technical or De Minimis Violations... 32 M. AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION... 32 1. Discretion... 32 2. Types of Sanctions and Limitations... 32 a. Generally... 32 b. Limitations... 32 c. Power to Sanction Not Unfettered... 33 d. Special Rules for Securities Cases... 33 e. Types of Sanctions Imposed.... 34 3. Relationship Between Sanction and Purpose of Sanction.... 37 a. Least Severe Sanction... 37 b. Purpose of Rule 11... 38 4. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors.... 38 a. State of Mind of Offender... 38 b. Knowledge, Experience and Expertise of Offender.... 38 c. Prior Misconduct of Offender... 38 d. Amount, Reasonableness and Necessity of Out-of-Pocket Expenses.... 38 e. Mitigation Requirement... 38 f. Risk of Chilling Effects.... 39 g. Impact on Offender... 39 h. Effect on Injured Party... 39 i. Burdens on the Court System.... 39 j. Voluntary Withdrawal of Violative Paper.... 39 5. Allocation of Sanctions... 39 a. Relative Culpability.... 39 b. Impact on Attorney-Client Relationship... 40 N. PROCEDURAL MATTERS... 40 1. Generally... 40 a. Separate Motion Requirement.... 40 iv