Lawyer sanctioned for copying text that misstated client’s complaint

Listen to this article

MINNEAPOLIS, MN— A U.S. magistrate judge has sanctioned a Minnesota attorney who copied and pasted a complaint filed by another lawyer and misrepresented to the court the legal conclusions of a state court case. The judge imposed nearly $20,000 in penalties for violations of Rule 11 and Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The lawyer, Richard Hechter, represented DaJovan Pettit in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed in September 2023 against Allina Health System. Essentially, Pettit’s case boiled down to “microaggressions.” However, Hechter made claims in filing the lawsuit that Pettit experienced “explicitly racist actions, including racial slurs, directed at her by supervisors and other employees at Allina.”

What explained the disconnect was that Hechter copied a complaint filed by another lawyer in another employment discrimination case against Allina.

This became evident at Pettit’s deposition, where Allina’s counsel asked her about claims in the complaint. Asked why claims were in the complaint that did not reflect her experience, Pettit responded, “I’m not sure.” Allina’s counsel asked Pettit why she was seemingly surprised about the claims in the complaint, and Pettit replied, “I didn’t say this; that’s why. And I pushed, I believe, for many of these things to be amended.”

In fact, Hechter copied the case Desmond Fielding v. Allina Health System, a case in which an employee also alleged racial discrimination by Allina. Hechter apparently copied entire portions of the complaint verbatim and submitted it as Pettit’s pleading. However, Fielding’s alleged experiences with his employer were different from what Pettit experienced. Pettit apparently told Hechter that the complaint was incorrect and needed to be amended, but it never was.

As the court noted, copying a pleading is not a per se Rule 11 violation; however, the copied portions made factual allegations that did not reflect Pettit’s experiences.

“The Court does not know and cannot speculate as to Mr. Hechter’s intent when he filed a complaint with false statements and a brief with clearly misstated legal assertions, but each of the offending documents was filed with the knowledge that they contained false statements and without Mr. Hechter having exhibited the diligent review required of any lawyer filing papers with the Court under Rule 11,” U.S. Magistrate Judge John Docherty asserted.

Additionally, Hechter cited the case, In Re The estate of Prince Rogers Nelson to oppose a sanction of the entirety of a party’s attorneys’ fees and costs. “The Court read that case, a civil probate matter in state court, and was unpleasantly surprised to find it does not even mention Rule 11 or sanctions,” Docherty explained. “The disturbing irony of this particular false statement to the Court is that it was made in Mr. Hechter’s memorandum in opposition to Allina’s Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11. Mr. Hechter violated Rule 11 in his efforts to avoid sanctions for his previous violations of Rule 11.”

Hechter also did not respond to legitimate discovery responses until two months past the date. A response came only after a motion to compel was filed. The court did not excuse the delay for Hechter’s health issues or staffing issues.

The court found that Hechter and his law firm, MLG, were jointly and severally liable for payment to Allina for $10,000. It also added $9,752.50, a Rule 37 sanction related to Allina’s motion to compel.

“Mr. Hechter’s behavior in litigating this case has egregiously undermined public trust in the legal system, the cost of which is ‘incalculable,’” Docherty wrote. “He made deliberate misrepresentations to the court, on both factual and legal issues that very likely may have been outcome-determinative if he had told the truth. By making misrepresentations of fact and law to the Court, Mr. Hechter not only exposed himself to serious consequences, but he also wasted the Court’s resources and undermined public confidence in the rule of law.”

While Hechter argued that he was a “working-class” lawyer who cannot afford to pay the sanctions, the court was not persuaded. “Mr. Hechter’s argument, if made a general rule of sanctions law, would allow lawyers who are not financially well off to commit sanctionable behavior without consequence,” Docherty avowed.

However, the court rejected Allina’s request to sanction Pettit personally. “At multiple points in this litigation, Allina’s counsel has sought sanctions against Ms. Pettit directly, a tactic which the Court cannot describe as anything but cruel,” Docherty maintained. “In seeking sanctions against Ms. Pettit personally for the misbehavior of her attorney, Allina’s counsel has crossed the line separating zealous advocacy on behalf of a client from mere bullying.”

“Ms. Pettit is a working-class layperson who made a poor choice of lawyer,” Docherty avowed.

Minnesota Lawyer reached out to Hechter for comment.