Civil Procedure — sanctions

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals

Civil

Civil Procedure — sanctions

Where an attorney filed a frivolous appeal and failed to comply with Rule 30, he is ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred.

“A violation of Circuit Rule 30 is sanctionable. See, e.g., Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d 1322, 1326–27 (7th Cir. 1989); Urso v. United States, 72 F.3d 59, 61–62 (7th Cir. 1995). So is the pursuit of a frivolous appeal. Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928, 938–40 (7th Cir. 1989) (en banc). Sanctions such as orders to pay the other side’s attorneys’ fees may redress injuries done to put-upon adversaries, but they do not redress injuries a lawyer may have done to his own client. We have no idea whether Sambrano had a good claim against the Navy—but we do know that, if she had, Joaquin massacred it.”

“His conduct in this case implies that Joaquin is not competent to protect the interests of litigants in the federal courts. In other recent cases we have ordered lawyers whose ineptitude injured (or may have injured) their own clients to show cause why they should not be suspended from practice or disbarred. See, e.g., Lee v. Chicago, 635 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Clark, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19032 (7th Cir. Sept. 15, 2011); Stanard v. Nygren, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19213 (7th Cir. Sept. 19, 2011). That step is appropriate here too. Judges are better able than clients to separate competent from bungling attorneys, and we have a duty to ensure the maintenance of professional standards by members of our bar.”

Affirmed.

10-3430 Sambrano v. Mabus

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Norgle, J., Easterbrook, J.