Recent Court Rules Decisions

When do sanctions transcend beyond warranted to the rarefied ranks of "richly deserved"? Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook offered a little insight on that topic this week based on an attorney's botched attempt to remove an action for sanctions in a lawsuit to a federal court.

Attorney David Novoselsky, purporting to represent plaintiff MB Financial as guardian of minor Cristina Zvunca's financial interests, sued six defendants in a state court. His suit alleged, among other things, that several of the defendants had abused Zvunca.

Have you ever asked yourself: “How many frivolous appeals does it take before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals threatens to sanction a pro se litigant?” The answer is 13.

This week, the Seventh Circuit rejected another appeal from Scott Wallis, who is contesting USA Baby, Inc.’s liquidation, and warned that Wallis would be sanctioned if he continued to waste the courts’ time with frivolous appeals.

It should come as no surprise that the members of the Wisconsin State Bar are a litigious bunch, but did you know that members of the bar have been challenging the First Amendment implications of their dues for over fifty years?

To practice law in the State of Wisconsin, lawyers must join the Wisconsin State Bar. To join the State Bar, lawyers must pay State Bar dues.

In 2007, the State Bar used a portion of members’ dues to conduct a public image campaign with the goal of improving the public’s perception of Wisconsin lawyers. Jon Kingstad, Steven Levine, and James Thiel (collectively described as the “Objectors”) objected to the State Bar’s use of their mandatory bar dues to fund the campaign as a violation of their First Amendment free speech rights.

Attorneys appearing before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals are on notice: both substance and style matter when filing in federal court.

In an opinion released this week, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint with prejudice after an attorney failed three times to file “an intelligible complaint” for his client.

The attorney, Walter Maksym, appealed the district court’s dismissal, arguing that his second amended complaint complied with court rules, and, even if it did not, he should have been offered a third chance to replead. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

Judges want their courtrooms to be respected and they can demand a high level of professionalism from those who appear before them. If you're ever appearing before Judge Richard Posner, pay attention to detail! A three-judge panel of 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded attorneys for filing an allegedly misleading and unprofessional brief.

The attorneys identified in the decision, Kenneth Kirschner and Lyndon Tretter, came from the firm of Hogan Lovells and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Tuesday issued a decision criticizing the firm for a brief it filed on behalf of the Girl Scouts of the United States.

According to Thomson Reuters News & Insight, the panel of the 7th Circuit drew particular attention to the fact that the attorneys from Hogan Lovells had misrepresented precedent in their brief.