Here are three very recent reminders about what not to do online. These separate stories involve an Indiana lawyer and two judges: one state and one federal. Apparently human nature makes on-line misconduct irresistible to some people, even at the cost of their licenses to practice, and the risk of other professional embarrassment.
Don’t Steele
Sanctions have long been available under federal statute for “multiply[ing] the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” Entitled “Counsel’s Liability for Excessive Costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is a short and seemingly straightforward provision that applies to “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States…” and
We’ve posted here before about interesting sanctions that courts have ordered for lawyer misconduct. Here’s another one, in a case very recently tried to a jury verdict in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
In Kuran David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, plaintiffs were Indian guest workers who alleged that they were falsely promised green cards
If you or your firm were ordered to pay a party’s legal fees as a “sanction” for professional misconduct, would your professional liability insurance cover that payment?
In a recent case, the district court for the Northern District of Illinois left a law firm high and dry, holding that the policy exclusion for sanctions meant
Here’s a cautionary tale about the line between vigorous advocacy and obstructionist conduct during discovery, and particularly at depositions.
A federal district court judge has administered an embarrassing bench-slap to a lawyer from a top-tier firm, requiring her to make a video about proper discovery procedures and to provide it to her firm’s litigators. The