7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

1/22

Home Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys Chapter 4: Drafting and Filing

the Complaint

4. sanctionsUpdated 2013 byJeffrey S. Gutman

Federal courts generally have three sources of power from which to impose sanctions:

1. Rule 11 of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure;

2. 28 .!.C. " 1#2$; and

%. &he inherent power of the court.

&hese sources of power overlap and are not necessarily mutually e'clusive.(1(&he legal

aid attorney should consider all three carefully when as)ing for sanctions or when faced

with the threat of sanctions. &his chapter e'plores each of these grounds for imposing

sanctions as well as the ethical issues inherent in ghostwriting filings forpro selitigants.4.2.A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11authori*es federal courts to issue sanctions against partiesor their attorneys who file pleadings+ motions+ or other papers that are filed for an

improper purpose or lac) a re,uired level of evidentiary or legal support. Rule 11

sanctions are not availa-le for other sorts of misconduct+ li)e discovery a-use or actions

during a trial.(2( &he aim of Rule 11 is to deter frivolous filings+ to cur- a-uses of the

/udicial system+0(%(and to re,uire litigants to refrain from conduct that frustrates Rule

1s goal of the /ust+ speedy+ and ine'pensive determination of every action.0(3(

Rule 11 states that 4e5very pleading+ written motion+ and other paper must -e signed -y

at least one attorney of record in the attorney6s name77or -y a party personally if the

party is unrepresented.((&hat is+ counsel must sign every document filed with the

court.(9(a typed name is not a signature.($(ut+ courts may -y local rule esta-lishelectronic filing policies consistent with technical standards adopted -y the

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

2/22

later advocating means and what a reasona-le in,uiry under the circumstances

entails.

&he later advocating0 re,uirement was added to Rule 11?-@ in 1##% to emphasi*e that

Rule 11 o-ligations continue throughout the litigation process.(1%(&his amendment

su-/ects litigants to potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer

tena-le.0(13(lthough an attorney must discontinue advocating a position that the

attorney later learns is invalid+ Rule 11 does not re,uire a formal amendment or

withdrawal of the initial filing.(1(Aor does Rule 11 cover contentions made -efore the

court at oral argument regarding matters not previously raised -ecause attorneys may

have lac)ed time to research their validity.(19(Bowever+ oral statements that repeat

-aseless assertions earlier made in writing are sanctiona-le.(1$(

&he reasona-le in,uiry re,uirement imposes on the attorney a duty to stop and

investigate the legal and factual -asis for a claim or defense -efore ma)ing it in

writing.(18( Bow much and what type of in,uiry is re,uired depends on the

circumstances. s one might e'pect+ important circumstances include the amount oftime the attorney has to ma)e the investigation+ the comple'ity of the matter+ the party6s

familiarity with the matter+ and the degree of access to relevant information.(1#(

pending e'piration of a statute of limitations or situation in which the client is facing

irrepara-le or grave harm may /ustify a less ro-ust investigation. >f there is

sufficient time to conduct a full investigation+ an attorney is e'pected to interview

relevant witnesses+ review pertinent documents+ and discuss the case with prior counsel

if the case has -een referred.(2=(enerally+ an attorney may rely upon the reasona-le

representations of their client+ -ut good practice is to see) verification of those facts

when it is possi-le to do so.(21(Dac) of e'perience is not a relevant factor+ as

ine'perienced attorneys are e'pected to see) guidance from seasoned attorneys. t-ottom+ a-solute certainty of the facts following a reasona-le investigation is not

re,uired.(22(

Rule 11?-@ enumerates four standards to which litigants and counsel must adhere when

presenting materials to the court. First+ Rule 11?-@?1@ re,uires that the papers not -e

presented for an improper purpose. Prohi-ited improper purposes include harassment+

unnecessary delay+ and the needless increase in the cost of litigation.(2%( Eespite the

su-/ective connotation of improper purpose+0 most courts agree that the test is an

o-/ective one -ased upon a totality of the circumstances at the time the paper is

filed.(23(Courts adhering to the o-/ective test will loo) to o-/ective indicators of

purpose from which to infer improper purpose0 and will not consider or attempt to

divine an individual litigant6s su-/ective purpose.(2( Frivolousness alone is not a -asis

for inferring improper purpose. Courts using this test must identify specific unusual

circumstances0 that show an improper purpose+ such as e'cessive filing of motions that

are su-stantially similar to earlier+ unsuccessful motions.(29(hile most circuits

addressing the issue agree that finding an improper purpose is a purely o-/ective tas)+ a

few courts disagree+ leaving unresolved the ,uestion of whether+ and to what e'tent+

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#13http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#13http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#13http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#14http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#14http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#14http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#15http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#15http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#15http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#16http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#16http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#16http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#16http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#17http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#17http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#17http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#18http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#19http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#20http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#20http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#21http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#22http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#23http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#23http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#23http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#24http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#24http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#24http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#25http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#25http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#25http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#26http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#26http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#26http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#13http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#14http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#15http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#16http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#17http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#18http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#19http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#20http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#21http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#22http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#23http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#24http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#25http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#26

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

3/22

su-/ective intent should -e considered as a factor in determining the litigant6s

purpose.(2$(

Complicating the improper purpose standard has -een how to evaluate cases involving a

mi' of proper and improper purposes and cases involving the filing of non7frivolous

documents which may nevertheless -e filed for an improper purpose. &he language of

Rule 11 plainly states that papers presented for any improper purpose will -e

sanctiona-le.(28(Bowever+ the courts have split on mi'ed motive cases.(2#(hether

non7frivolous filings made for improper purposes are sanctiona-le has also split the

circuits. &he !econd+ Ainth+ and &enth Circuits have held that sanctions may not -e

imposed in connection with the filing of a non7frivolous complaint+ even if filed for an

improper purpose.(%=( &hese courts have found that that 4a5 party should not -e

penali*ed for or deterred from see)ing and o-taining warranted /udicial relief merely

-ecause one of his multiple purposes in see)ing that relief may have -een

improper.0(%1(lternatively+ the Fourth+ Fifth and !eventh Circuits have held that

counsel filing a non7frivolous complaint for improper purposes may -esanctioned.(%2(&he Fourth Circuit has adopted a -alancing test of sorts+ stating that

the purpose to vindicate rights in court must -e central and sincere.0(%%(&he Fifth

Circuit has adopted a -ut for0 test to determine when a party may -e sanctioned for

filing a document with an improper purpose.(%3( &his test re,uires the movant to prove+

through o-/ectively ascertaina-le evidence+ that -ut for0 the improper motive+ the filing

would not have -een filed.(%( >n contrast+ courts have held that sanctions may -e

awarded against attorneys filing non7frivolous motions for an improper purposes.(%9(

!econd+ Rule 11?-@?2@ states that any claims+ defenses+ or legal contentions presented to

the court must -e grounded in e'isting law+ asserted to e'tend+ modify+ or reverse

e'isting law+ or esta-lish new law.(%$(&his re,uires attorneys to ma)e an o-/ectivelyreasona-le in,uiry under the circumstances into the state of the law. &he standard is not

met when the legal assertion is ?1@ o-/ectively -aseless and ?2@ the attorney has not

made a reasona-le and competent in,uiry0 -efore ma)ing it.(%8(&he notion is that

sanctions are warranted when a reasona-le in,uiry would reveal frivolousness to a

comptent attorney.(%#( court need not find -ad faith to issue sanctions; good faith is

no defense.(3=(&hus+ an empty head+ pure heart defense to a motion for sanctions

must fail. legal position will -e sanctiona-le only when it can -e said that a

reasona-le attorney in li)e circumstances could not have -elieved his actions to -e

legally /ustified.0(31(

hen the prevailing law is unsettled+ a well7supported -ut unsuccessful argument

should not -e su-/ect to sanctions. hen the e'isting law is clear+ -ut contrary to the

position of the legal aid attorney+ courts have held that plausi-le arguments to e'tend+

modify+ or reverse e'isting law are not su-/ect to Rule 11 sanctions.(32(!uch arguments+

though+ should -e grounded in favora-le precedent in other circuits or academic

literature. Reliance on policy or logic alone raises the ris) of sanctions. &he legal

argument must have a-solutely no chance of success under the e'isting precedent to

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#27http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#27http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#27http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#28http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#28http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#28http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#29http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#30http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#30http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#30http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#31http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#31http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#31http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#31http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#32http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#32http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#32http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#32http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#33http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#33http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#33http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#34http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#35http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#36http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#37http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#37http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#37http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#38http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#38http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#38http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#39http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#40http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#40http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#40http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#40http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#41http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#41http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#41http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#42http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#42http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#42http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#27http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#28http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#29http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#30http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#31http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#32http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#33http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#34http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#35http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#36http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#37http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#38http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#39http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#40http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#41http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#42

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

4/22

contravene Rule 11.(3%(Aonetheless+ advancing an argument for the purpose of

preserving it for appellate review is permissi-le+ so long as the argument is not

frivolous.(33(Degal services attorneys should document the legal research performed

and consultations with other attorneys -efore filing -ecause these efforts are su-/ect to

scrutiny should a Rule 11 motion -e filed.(3(hen an argument is foreclosed -y

e'isting law+ the legal aid attorney should -e careful to e'plain that the attorney is

advancing a novel legal argument aimed at reversing e'isting law or esta-lishing new

law.(39(

&hird+ Rule 11?-@?%@ re,uires that any factual allegation either have evidentiary support

or+ if identified as such+ -e li)ely to have evidentiary support after a reasona-le

opportunity for further investigation or discovery.0(3$( Gvidentiary support can include

reasona-le inferences from facts or circumstantial evidence.(38( &his re,uires attorneys

to ma)e an o-/ectively reasona-le in,uiry under the circumstances into the facts of the

case. s noted a-ove+ to determine whether factual assertions are supported -y an

o-/ectively reasona-le factual in,uiry+ courts will loo) to several factors+ including:!hether the si"ner of the documents had sufficient time for investi"ation# the e$tent to!hich the attorney had to re%y on his or her c%ient for the factua% foundationunder%yin" the p%eadin"& motion or other paper# !hether the case !as accepted fromanother attorney# the comp%e$ity of the facts and the attorney's abi%ity to do asufficient pre(fi%in" investi"ation# and !hether discovery !ou%d have been beneficia%to the deve%opment of the under%yin" facts.)*+)

&he !econd Circuit recently held that 4a5 statement of fact can give rise to the

imposition of sanctions only when the particular allegation is utterly lac)ing in

support.(=(>t is not a violation of Rule 11 to fail to indentify the support for the fact as

either -ased on direct evidence or inference.(1(Aor is it generally a violation not to

disclose contrary factual evidence.(2( enerally+ isolated factual errors are not

sanctiona-le+ so long as the error was made in good faith and in a conte't in which the

filing as a whole had factual support.(%( Bowever+ courts have on occasion held such

errors to -e deserving of sanctions.(3(Factual assertions should+ at -ottom+ -e made

with e'treme care and after review -y others in the legal aid office.

Fourth+ Rule 11?-@?3@ states that any denials of factual contentions must -e either

warranted on the evidence0 or+ if identified as such+ reasona-ly -ased on a lac) of

information or -elief.0((&hus+ denials of fact are treated li)e factual assertions and

must -e o-/ectively reasona-le. &he addition of this fourth re,uirement to the 1##%amended rule ensures an e,ual application to -oth plaintiffs and defendants.4.2.A.2. Sanctions

Rule 11?c@ permits+ -ut no longer re,uires+ the court to issue sanctions to attorneys+ law

firms+ or parties in violation of the rule or responsi-le for the violation.(9(&he 1##%

amendments made the issuance of sanctions+ whether prompted -y motion or -y the

courts own initiative+ discretionary rather than mandatory.($(&he advisory

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#43http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#43http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#43http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#43http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#44http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#45http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#45http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#45http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#46http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#46http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#46http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#46http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#47http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#47http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#47http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#48http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#49http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#50http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#50http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#50http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#50http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#51http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#52http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#53http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#53http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#53http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#54http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#54http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#55http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#55http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#55http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#56http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#56http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#56http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#56http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#57http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#57http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#57http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#43http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#44http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#45http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#46http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#47http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#48http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#49http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#50http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#51http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#52http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#53http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#54http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#55http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#56http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#57

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

5/22

committees notes list several factors that the courts should consider in deciding

whether to issue a sanction and+ if appropriate+ the )ind of sanction to impose:

,hether the improper conduct !as !i%%fu%& or ne"%i"ent# !hether it!as part of a pattern of activity& or an iso%ated event# !hether itinfected the entire p%eadin"& or on%y one particu%ar count or defense#!hether the person has en"a"ed in simi%ar conduct in other %iti"ation#!hether it !as intended to in-ure# !hat effect it had on the %iti"ationprocess in time or e$pense# !hether the responsib%e person is trainedin the %a!# !hat amount& "iven the financia% resources of theresponsib%e person& is needed to deter that person from repetition inthe same case# !hat amount is needed to deter simi%ar activity byother %iti"ants.)/)

&he 1##% amendments also stress that the purpose of sanctions is deterrence rather

than compensation and highlight the availa-ility of non7monetary sanctions for the

court6s consideration.(#( Consistent with this deterrence function+ if a monetarysanction is imposed+ it should ordinarily -e paid into court as a penalty.0(9=(&hese

amendments lessen the incentive for a litigant to file a motion for sanctions -ecause the

litigant is less li)ely to profit financially if a Rule 11 violation is found -y the court. Rule

11+ however+ also authori*es the direct payment of fees and e'penses to the moving party

when warranted for effective deterrence.0(91(t -ottom+ sanctions should not -e more

severe than reasona-ly necessary to deter repetition of the conduct -y the offending

person or compara-le conduct -y similarly situated persons.0(92( &his deterrence

function permits the court to account for the attorney6s resources when setting a

monetary sanction.(9%(

Rule 11 authori*es the court to sanction -oth attorneys and their clients.(93(Rule 11?c@

?1@?@ further provides that+ 4a5-sent e'ceptional circumstances+ a law firm shall -e

held /ointly responsi-le for violations committed -y its partners+ associates+ and

employees.0(9(lthough this provision has apparently not -een applied to a legal

services organi*ation+ it does suggest that such an entity could -e regarded as a law firm

and+ therefore+ su-/ect to sanctions when an attorney it employs violates Rule

11.(99(&he advisory committees notes state that the court may appropriately in,uire

whether institutional parties0 impose restrictions on the discretion of individual

attorneys.(9$(&o the e'tent that such restrictions minimi*e the ris) of institutional

sanctions+ legal aid organi*ations may wish to consider imposing them.Rule 11?c@??1@?@ re,uires that a party see)ing sanctions must serve a separate

motion(98( identifiying the conduct that is alleged to have violated Rule 11 on the

alleged offender twenty7one days -efore filing the motion in court. (9#(Euring this

twenty7one7day period+($=( the party served may withdraw or correct any challenged

material+ thus eliminating the need for the motion to -e filed with the court.($1( &his

safe har-or0 period aims to decrease the volume of Rule 11 motions that come -efore

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#58http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#59http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#60http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#61http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#61http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#61http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#62http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#63http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#64http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#64http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#64http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#64http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#65http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#65http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#65http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#65http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#66http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#66http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#66http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#66http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#66http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#67http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#67http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#67http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#68http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#69http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#69http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#69http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#70http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#71http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#58http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#59http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#60http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#61http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#62http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#63http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#64http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#65http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#66http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#67http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#68http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#69http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#70http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#71

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

6/22

the court. Ditigants may avoid potential sanctions -y withdrawing or amending

improper materials without the court6s involvement. &he court inBarber v.

i%%erdiscussed the rationale for the safe7har-or provision as follows:

hese provisions are intended to provide a type of safe harbor a"ainst motionsunder 4u%e 11 in that a party !i%% not be sub-ect to sanctions on the basis of anotherparty's motion un%ess& after receivin" the motion& it refused to !ithdra! that positionor to ac5no!%ed"e candid%y that it does not current%y have evidence to support aspecified a%%e"ation. Under the former ru%e& parties !ere sometimes re%uctant toabandon a 6uestionab%e contention %est that be vie!ed as evidence of a vio%ation of4u%e 11# under the revision& the time%y !ithdra!a% of a contention !i%% protect a partya"ainst a motion for sanctions.)72)

court may also levy sanctions sua sponte-ut may do so only after issuing a specific

order descri-ing the perceived misconduct and allowing the possi-le offender an

opportunity to show cause why the sanction should not -e issued.($%(&he rule

incorporates a measure of due process protection.($3(Bowever+ -ecause a suasponteorder to show cause does not allow an attorney the opportunity to withdraw the

offending filing+ courts are cautioned to reserve such sanctions for situations that are

a)in to a contempt of court.0($(Furthermore+ to facilitate appellate review+ the rule

re,uires the court to descri-e the sanctiona-le conduct and the -asis for the sanction

imposed.($9(

hile the matter may turn on particular facts+ Rule 11 sanctions are not generally

immediately appeala-le under the collateral order doctrine.($$(Hn appeal+04a5ll aspects

of a district courts Rule 11 determination are e'amined under the a-use of discretion

standard.0($8(Bowever+ when sanctions are levied sua sponte+ they will -e reviewed with

particular stringency0 due to the unusual position of the trial court in such

circumstances+ serving at once as -oth prosecutor and /udge . . . .0($#(4.2.B. 28 U.S.C. 1927

nother -asis for sanctions lies in 28 .!.C. " 1#2$+ which serves to deter unnecessary

delays in litigation.0(8=(&he statute authori*es sanctions in the form of e'cess costs+

e'penses+ and attorneys fees0 against any attorney who multiplies the proceedings in

any case unreasona-ly and ve'atiously.0(81(Courts are divided on whether law firms

?and+ -y e'tension+ legal aid offices@ may -e su-/ect to sanctions under " 1#2$ in

addition to individual attorneys.(82( Courts have resorted to " 1#2$ more fre,uently

since the statute was amended to include attorney fees.(8%(&he scope of authority to sanction under " 1#2$ is -oth -roader and narrower than Rule

11.(83(!ection 1#2$ is -roader in that the attorneys -ehavior is e'amined throughout

the entire litigation+ as a course of conduct+0(8(while Rule 11 applies to individual

filings. &he filing of a frivolous complaint+ alone+ may violate Rule 11+ -ut not " 1#2$

-ecause such a complaint does not multiply the proceedings.(89(Conversely+ a course

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#72http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#72http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#72http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#72http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#73http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#73http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#73http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#74http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#74http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#74http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#75http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#75http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#75http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#76http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#77http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#77http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#77http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#77http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#78http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#79http://www.jureeka.net/Jureeka/US.aspx?doc=U.S.C.&vol=28&sec=1927&sec2=undefined&sec3=undefined&sec4=undefined&bUrl=http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25/edithttp://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#80http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#80http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#80http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#80http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#81http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#81http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#81http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#82http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#83http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#83http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#83http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#84http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#84http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#84http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#84http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#85http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#85http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#85http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#76http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#86http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#86http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#86http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#72http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#73http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#74http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#75http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#76http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#77http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#78http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#79http://www.jureeka.net/Jureeka/US.aspx?doc=U.S.C.&vol=28&sec=1927&sec2=undefined&sec3=undefined&sec4=undefined&bUrl=http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25/edithttp://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#80http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#81http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#82http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#83http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#84http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#85http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#76http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#86

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

7/22

of conduct can -e sanctiona-le under " 1#2$ even though the individual filings during

that conduct comport with Rule 11 standards.

!ection 1#2$ is narrower -ecause+ unli)e Rule 11 re,uirement of o-/ective

reasona-leness+ " 1#2$ generally re,uires su-/ective -ad faith.(8$(!ome courts+

however+ interpret " 1#2$ as authori*ing sanctions when attorney conduct falls short of

-ad faith: viewed o-/ectively+ manifests either intentional or rec)less disregard of the

attorneys duties to the court.0(88( For these courts+ malicious intent or -ad purpose is

not re,uired. &hus+ the circuits are split as to whether " 1#2$ re,uires a showing of

su-/ective -ad faith or whether mere rec)lessness is sufficient.(8#(

!ince Rule 11 and " 1#2$ have different standards+ courts deciding whether to issue

sanctions under -oth may conduct a separate in,uiry into " 1#2$ and Rule 11+ -ut a

court proceeding sua sponteunder either rule must give the su-/ect attorney notice and

an opportunity to respond.(#=(&he resulting findings must detail the -asis for the

sanctions+ lin) the conduct to the sanctions awarded+ and distinguish among sanctions

awarded under different theories.(#1( !anctions under " 1#2$ serve -oth deterrence andcompensatory functions. s a result+ the amount awarded need not -e the least amount

necessary to deter su-se,uent misconduct and is approrpiately paya-le to the opposing

party.(#2( &he circuits are divided on whether it is not an a-use of discretion for a trial

court to reduce a fee award to account for the sanctioned attorney6s a-ility to pay it.(#%(4.2.C. The Ihere! Po"er of !he Cour!

&he sanctioning power of the federal courts is not limited to what is enumerated in

statutes or in the rules of civil procedure.(#3(Federal courts have the inherent power to

punish persons who a-use the /udicial process. &he inherent power of the court is an

implied power s,uee*ed from the need to ma)e the courts function.(#(Rule 11 and "

1#2$ do not displace the court6s inherent power+ -ut instead they e'ist concurrently.(#9(&he inherent power to sanction is -road.(#$(&he scope of the power reaches any a-use

of the /udicial process.(#8(&his includes the authority to sanction for conduct that

occurs outside of the courtroom and is not limited to attorneys or parties.(##(Courts

also have -road discretion to determine the appropriate sanction to -e

imposed.(1= =(here appropriate+ courts may impose attorney fees representing the

entire cost of litigation.(1=1 (Bowever+ the courts6 inherent power to impose attorney

fees is limited to those cases where the litigant has engaged in -ad7faith conduct or

willful diso-edience . . . .(1=2 (

iven the -road authority granted+ a court6s use of the inherent power should -e used

cautiously.(1=% (ny use must comply with due process.(1=3 (se of the power will -e

reviewed under the a-use of discretion standard.(1= (

Table of Comparison:

Rule 11 28 U.S.C. 1927 Inherent Poer

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#78http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#87http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#78http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#88http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#88http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#79http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#79http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#80http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#89http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#89http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#90http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#90http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#90http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#90http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#91http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#92http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#93http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#94http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#94http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#94http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#95http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#95http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#95http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#96http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#96http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#96http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#97http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#97http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#97http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#98http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#98http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#98http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#98http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#99http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#99http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#99http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#100http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#100http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#100http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#101http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#101http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#101http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#102http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#102http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#102http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#103http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#103http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#103http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#104http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#104http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#94http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#105http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#105http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#105http://www.jureeka.net/Jureeka/US.aspx?doc=U.S.C.&vol=28&sec=1927&sec2=undefined&sec3=undefined&sec4=undefined&bUrl=http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25/edithttp://www.jureeka.net/Jureeka/US.aspx?doc=U.S.C.&vol=28&sec=1927&sec2=undefined&sec3=undefined&sec4=undefined&bUrl=http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25/edithttp://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#78http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#87http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#78http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#88http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#79http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#80http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#89http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#90http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#91http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#92http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#93http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#94http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#95http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#96http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#97http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#98http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#99http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#100http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#101http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#102http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#103http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#104http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#94http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#105http://www.jureeka.net/Jureeka/US.aspx?doc=U.S.C.&vol=28&sec=1927&sec2=undefined&sec3=undefined&sec4=undefined&bUrl=http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25/edit

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

8/22

!ppli"ableCon#u"t:

Pleadings+ written motions+and other papers filed in a civilaction for an improper purposeor without a reasona-le in,uiryinto the facts and law.

ny conduct whichso multiplies theproceedings in anycase unreasona-lyand ve'atiously.

ny a-use of the/udicial process.

$e%alStan#ar#Tri%%erin%$iabilit&: H-/ective reasona-leness

Circuit !plit:!u-/ective -ad faithor mererec)lessness.

ad faith re,uired toaward e'pensesincluding attorneyfees.

'ho Can (eSan"tione#:

ttorneys+ their law firms+parties+ and pro se litigants. ttorneys only. road authority.

Pro"e#uralRe)uirements:

Iust -e in separate motion+which must -e served on theoffending party 21 days -eforefiling with the court. >f

offending filing is withdrawn+the matter is concluded. Courtmay demand attorney+ lawfirm+ or party show cause whyconduct does not violate Rule11?-@ of its own initiative.

Ao specificre,uirements. Iustcomport with dueprocess.

Ao specificre,uirements. Iustcomport with dueprocess.

4.2.#. $ho%!"ri!i&

s increasing num-ers of litigants proceed pro se+ many lawyers and legal offices

offer un-undled legal services also )nown as limited scope

representation.(1=9 (Dimited representation is permissi-le if reasona-le and the client

consents.(1=$(>n such representation+ attorneys and clients agree that the attorneys willprovide discrete and limited services for the clients as part of the clients6 efforts to

represent themselves. Hne such service is ghostwriting+ which occurs when an attorney

prepares documents for filing -y a party who otherwise appears unrepresented in the

litigation.(1=8 (

>nitially+ the attorney must consider what amount of assistance constitutes ghostwriting

in the /urisdiction. Courts generally find that an attorney must play a su-stantial role in

the litigation to -e considered a ghostwriter.(1=# (Petitions and -riefs that are

manifestly written or prepared in any su-stantial way -y an attorney will cross this

threshold.(11= (

hostwriting has -een defended as a practice that improves client satisfaction+ helpsparties advance meritorious claims or defenses that would otherwise not -e made+ and

increases access to civil representation for clients who would otherwise -e una-le to

afford full7service representation.(111 (Bowever+ courts and -ar ethics committees have

critici*ed the practice as duping courts into giving pro se litigants undeserved leniency

and allowing attorneys to avoid procedural rules and ethical

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#106http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#106http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#106http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#107http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#108http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#108http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#108http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#109http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#109http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#109http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#110http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#110http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#110http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#111http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#111http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#106http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#107http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#108http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#109http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#110http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#111

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

9/22

o-ligations.(112 (hostwriting therefore raises -oth ethical and procedural

concerns.(11% (

4.2.D.1. Ethical Concerns

Jarious courts and ethics committees have found the practice of ghostwriting to -e in

conflict with the duty of candor owed to the court -y giving a false impression of the

real state of affairs.(113 (&hey regard ghostwriting as violating Iodel Rules of

Professional Conduct Rule %.%?a@?1@ ?candor to the tri-unal@ and(or 3.1 ?truthfulness in

statements to others@.(11 (dditionally+ ghostwriters may run afoul of Iodel Rule

8.3?c@6s admonition against conduct involving dishonesty+ fraud+ deceit or

misrepresentation -y not disclosing their participation in drafting the document.(119 (

>n 2==$ the released a formal opinion finding that 4a5 lawyer may provide legal

assistance to litigants appearing -efore tri-unals 6pro se6 and help them prepare written

su-missions without disclosing or ensuring the disclosure of the nature or e'tent of such

assistance.(11$ (&he committee therefore found that providing undisclosed legal

assistance to pro se litigations does not violate the Iodel Rules of Professional Conductso long as the assisting lawyer does not violate rules that otherwise apply to their

conduct.(118 (&he committee was not persuaded that undisclosed assistance gives

an advantage to pro se litigants whose filings are generally construed li-erally since the

-ac)ground help -y a lawyer should -e clear if the document is drafted effectively. Aor

did the committee view ghostwriting as a violation of Iodel Rule 8.3 or of rules+ li)e

Rule 11+ that re,uire attorneys to assume responsi-ility for documents filed with a

court. !omewhat -egging the ,uestion+ the committee concluded that such a duty is

assumed only when the attorney signs the document as counsel.

!tate ethics committees continue to reach divergent conclusion a-out the propriety of

ghostwriting.(11# ( !ome state committees have adopted the position and statethat no disclosure is ethically re,uired.(12= (Hthers have ta)en a more moderate view+

re,uiring attorneys only to inform the court that the pro se litigant received professional

help+ for e'ample+ -y including the statement prepared -y counsel in the ghostwritten

filing.(121(Hther committees go further+ demanding ghostwriting attorneys to reveal

their full identities.(122 (&here is some academic support for the notion that attorneys

should -e re,uired to disclose their involvement -ut that it should -e regarded as a

limited appearance that does not re,uire a su-se,uent motion to withdraw.(12%(

iven the wide diversity of opinion on ghostwriting+ -efore engaging in the practice+ it is

strongly recommended that you review any ethics opinions involving ghostwriting in

your /urisdiction or see) such an opinion if there is not one on point.4.2.D.2 Procedural Concerns

Federal courts have -een hostile to the practice of ghostwriting+ finding that it violates

the spirit of Rule 11 -y circumventing the attorney6s signature re,uirement.(123 (Courts

have specifically interpreted the purpose of Rule 11?a@ as re,uiring attorneys to sign

court documents that they prepared in any su-stantial part.0(12 (Bowever+ one court

ac)nowledged that if a ghostwriter no longer represented a litigant when the complaint

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#112http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#112http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#112http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#113http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#113http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#113http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#114http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#114http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#114http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#115http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#115http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#115http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#116http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#116http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#116http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#117http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#117http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#117http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#118http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#118http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#118http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#119http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#119http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#119http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#120http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#120http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#120http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#121http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#121http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#122http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#122http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#122http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#123http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#124http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#124http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#124http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#125http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#125http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#125http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#125http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#112http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#113http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#114http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#115http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#116http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#117http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#118http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#119http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#120http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#121http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#122http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#123http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#124http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/25#125

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

10/22

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

11/22

9. Hther papers0 is -roadly interpreted.See& e.".&Bec5er v. ont"omery+ %2 .!. $$+ $9%

?2==1@ ?notice of appeal@;

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

12/22

case from another attorney may place some reliance on other attorney6s prior

investigation@.

21.8ubois v. U.S. 8epartment of

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

13/22

avoid penali*ing the filing of a nonfrivolous complaint+ for otherwise a plaintiff who has

a valid claim may lost his right Mto vindicate his rights in court.0@;o!nsend v. :o%man

Consu%tin" Corporation+ #2# F.2d 1%8+ 1%92 ?#th Cir. 1##=@ ?en -anc@ ?ith regard to

complaints which initiate actions+ we have held that such complaints are not filed for an

improper purpose if they are non7frivolous . . . . &he reason for this rule regarding

complaints is that the complaint is+ of course+ the document which em-odies the

plaintiffs cause of action and it is the vehicle through which he enforces his su-stantive

legal rights.0@ ?citations omitted@;Bur5hart v. ins%ey Ban5+82 F.2d 12+ 1 ?1=th Cir. 1#88@

?>f counsel filed complaint that was non7frivolous+ then any suggestion of harassment

would necessarily fail.0@.

(!. Sussman* ", F.(d at 4"'.

(. See In re 'unstler* '!4 F.d at "!5 &0nding that court may sanction otherise

colora/le complaint if purpose to $indicate rights in court is not ;central and

sincere

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

14/22

4!. Morris v. Wachovia Securities, Incorporated* 445 F.(d ,5* -- &4th Cir. ++,)

&1uoting Hunter v. Earth)rains !ompany (akery* 5! F.(d !44* !"( &4th Cir.

++)). SeeArio v. *nder1ritin) Members of Syndicate 45*,!5 F.(d --* '- &(d Cir.

+!+) &unpersuasi$e and losing argument is not in$aria/ly fri$olous).

4. See, e.).* Hunter* 5! F.(d at!",7"- &re$ersing sanction of attorney ho inartfully

argued for re$ersal of Circuit precedent)2 %ibson v. !hrysler !orporation* ,! F.(d '-*

'4' &'th Cir. ++!)* cert. denied sub nom.* #aimler!hrysler !orporation v. %ibson* "(4

3.. !!+4 &re$ersing aard of #ule !! sanctions /ecause ;e recogni>e the di?culties

faced /y parties ho see@ to ad$ance no$el legal arguments

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

15/22

"+. 'iobel v. Millson* "' F.(d -5* 5! &d Cir. +!+) &0nding that counselEs statements

ere possi/ly factually rong and o$erstated* /ut not utterly lac@ing support* and

therefore not sanctiona/le) &internal 1uotations omitted).

1.Ducas+ $3 F.%d at$$8.

2.Id.at $8=.

"(. Fed. #. Ci$. P. !! ad$isory committee%s notes&!''()2 see also 'iobel* "' F.(d at

5(2 In re (ees* ", F.(d at 55.

3.Jen5ins+ 3$8 F.%d 2+29 ?th Cir. 2==$@.

. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11?-@?3@.

9.Fed. R. Civ. P. 11?c@.

"-. Id.

"5. Fed. #. Ci$. P. !! ad$isory committee%s notes&!''().

#.Id. ?non7monetary sanctions include stri)ing offending filing; admonition+

reprimand+ or censure; attendance at continuing legal education courses; or referral to

disciplinary authorities@.9=.Id.See a%soethode %ectronics& Incorporated v.

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

16/22

potential lia-ility on the ground that the safe7har-or provision+ discussed -elow+ ma)es

it appropriate to regard a law firm as /ointly responsi-le for the sanctiona-le conduct of

its agents.Fed. R Civ. P. 11 advisory committees notes?1##%@; but see 4entE+ 9 F.%d at

%#$ ?upholding district courts decision not to sanction law firm where attorney violated

Rule 11 /ust after /oining the firm in case attorney -rought with him and with which

others at firm had little to no involvement@.

99. hile there are no decisions holding legal service organi*ations /ointly accounta-le+

e'amples of government agencies -eing held /ointly accounta-le may -e instructive.See&

e.".&

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

17/22

with pre/udice is not re,uired.Sne%%er v. City of Bainbrid"e Is%and+ 9=9 F.%d 9%9+ 9%# ?#th

Cir. 2=1=@.

$2.Barber v. i%%er+ 139 F.%d $=$+ $1= ?#th Cir. 1##8@.

$%. Fed. R. Civ. P.11?c@?1@?@; see1(10 Industry

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

18/22

8%. 28 .!.C. " 1#2$+amended byntitrust Procedural >mprovements ct of 1#8=+ Pu-. D.

Ao. #97%3#+ " %+ #3 !tat. 113+ 119.See "enera%%y

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

19/22

imposed under provisions such as Rule 11+ courts should not e'ercise their inherent

power.@.

#$.Id.

#8.See id. at 33.

##.See id. at 39+ $ ?s long as a party receives an appropriate hearing . . . the party may

-e sanctioned for a-uses of process occurring -eyond the courtroom . . . .@.

1==.See id. at 3373.SeeSta%%ey v. ountain States :ea%th

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

20/22

112.See& e.".+ Iichael . Doudenslager+ Givin" Up he Ghost? < 9roposa% >or 8ea%in" ,ith

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

21/22

123.See& e.".+ Gordon v. 8adante+ Ao. 1:=7CJ72$29 ?A.E. Hhio

7/23/2019 Sanctions Notes

22/22

action+ withdrawal is permitted only -y order of the court+ and after reasona-le notice to

the party represented.@.

1%.Johnson+ 898 F. !upp. at 12%2 ?suggesting that ghostwriting constitutes e'tensive

undisclosed assistance topro selitigant in violation of then Iodel Code of Professional

Responsi-ility ER 171=2?@?3@@.

1%9.SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 11; ,es%ey v. 8on Stein Buic5 Incorporated+ #8$ F. !upp. 883+ 889 ?E. Lan.

1##$@;Daremont(DopeE+ #98 F. !upp. at 1=$87$#;Johnson+ 898 F. !upp. at 12%1 ?focusing

on ris) that ghostwriting will ena-le attorneys to sidestep Rule 11s certification

re,uirement that allegations and factual contentions have evidentiary

support0@;Rothermich+supra note 111+ at 2$19718 ?1###@.

1%$.Daremont(DopeE+ #98 F. !upp. at 1=$$ n.2.

1%8.Id.

1%#. Iodel Rule of Professional Conduct 1.19?2==$@.See a%so