OPINION AND ORDER In the last two years, lawyer Noor Abou-Saab has filed more lawsuits in this District than almost any other lawyer — a total of 349, all or nearly all bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) alleging that a website is not accessible to those with visual impairments. On top of that, he filed another 56 cases in the same period (for a grand total of 405) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That would not be a problem, except that Mr. Saab has demonstrated time and again that he is not up to the task of complying with the many deadlines and obligations posed by his sizeable caseload. To cite just two examples from the undersigned’s docket alone: In Hernandez v. Nooworks, LLC, No. 23-CV-2657 (JMF) (SLC), the Court threatened sanctions after Mr. Saab (and his adversary) twice failed to submit certain pre-conference documents, despite a reminder and a courtesy extension. See id., ECF No. 17. Two weeks later, Magistrate Judge Cave also threatened sanctions after Mr. Saab repeatedly failed to submit certain settlement-related documents, despite multiple e-mail reminders from her Chambers. See id., ECF No. 19. In Robertson v. Bob Mackie Design Group, Ltd., No. 23-CV-5112 (JMF) (GWG), the Court threatened sanctions when Mr. Saab failed to file a motion for default judgment by the deadline, failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and failed to file proof of service of the Court’s Order to Show Cause. See id., ECF No. 12. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein later admonished Mr. Saab(and his adversary) for various other deficiencies. See id., ECF No. 17. Not surprisingly, Mr. Saab’s failures to comply with court-ordered deadlines and to prosecute his cases diligently have not been limited to the undersigned’s docket. As the attached Appendix makes plain, dozens of his cases in this District have been dismissed for failure to either serve or prosecute. As the Appendix also shows, that number would surely be higher but for the fact that Mr. Saab is wont to dismiss cases voluntarily when confronted with judges demanding explanations for his repeated failures, no doubt seeking to preempt court-ordered dismissal or other sanction. One might think that this record would have prompted Mr. Saab to exercise more care and attention, but regrettably the present case indicates otherwise. Indeed, Mr. Saab failed to comply with nearly every deadline the Court set in this case — despite repeated reminders and second and even third chances. His string of failures began with the very first deadline, August 17, 2023, when he (and his adversary) failed to submit certain required materials prior to their initial pretrial conference — despite an Order entered on August 14, 2023, reminding them to do so. See ECF Nos. 11-12. It continued on September 25, 2023, when the Court was advised that a Court-ordered mediation was not held because Mr. Saab had failed to provide the Court’s Mediation Office with any potential dates for the session. See ECF Nos. 18, 20. And it continued still on January 4, 2024, when Mr. Saab (and his adversary) failed to submit certain required materials prior to their second pretrial conference — once again despite an Order entered just days earlier reminding them to do so. ECF Nos. 24-25. The Court sua sponte granted a courtesy extension until January 8, 2024, ECF No. 25, but remarkably Mr. Saab (and his adversary) missed that deadline too. On January 9, 2024, the Court ordered Mr. Saab and his adversary to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on them for their failures to comply with the Court’s orders. See ECF No. 26. Mr. Saab’s adversary timely responded and pointed his finger at Mr. Saab for some of the missed deadlines. See ECF No. 27. Mr. Saab failed even to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. On Thursday, January 18, 2024, the Court converted a pretrial telephone conference scheduled for Monday, January 22, 2024, to an in-person conference in light of counsel’s unresponsiveness and repeated failures to heed deadlines. See ECF No. 29. In advance of that conference, the parties were required to file a joint letter. See ECF No. 17, at 5; ECF No. 26. But despite yet another reminder only days before the deadline, see ECF No. 28, Mr. Saab failed to respond to his adversary’s outreach, see ECF No. 30. As a result, his adversary filed a “unilateral[]” letter explaining that he had been “ unable to secure the cooperation of [Mr. Saab], despite repeated attempts on [his] part and multiple reminders from the Court.” ECF No. 30, at 1. Notably, the letter reported that Mr. Saab propounded zero “discovery demands” before the close of discovery on December 21, 2023. See id. at 2. The letter further noted that Defendant had noticed Plaintiff’s deposition but it never took place because counsel was “never able to coordinate a time” for it. Id. Mr. Saab finally came out of the woodwork at 4:39 p.m. on Friday, January 19, 2024, when he filed a notice of voluntary dismissal — almost certainly an attempt to avoid appearing at the January 22, 2024 conference and to evade any sanctions for his repeated failures to comply with the Court’s Orders. See ECF No. 35. On the morning of Monday, January 22, 2024, the Court entered an Order noting that it would “so order” the voluntary dismissal — which it did, see ECF No. 35 — but that counsel was still required to appear at the previously scheduled conference because the Court retained jurisdiction to address the issue of sanctions. See ECF No. 33 (citing U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 775 F.3d 128, 134 (2d Cir. 2014); In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 317 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2003); and Rice v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 19-CV-447 (JMF), 2019 WL 3000808, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2019)). That prompted a letter motion and multiple telephone calls from Mr. Saab to the Court’s chambers requesting that the conference be adjourned or converted back to a teleconference. See ECF No. 34. In these communications, Mr. Saab represented that he was unable to appear in-person because he had had COVID-19 “last year.” See ECF Nos. 34, 36. The Court gave Mr. Saab an opportunity to provide medical documentation to support his request, ECF No. 36, but because he failed to provide any, the Court held the conference that afternoon as scheduled. At the conference, Mr. Saab acknowledged his repeated “failures to follow [the Court's] orders.” Jan. 22, 2024 Hr’g Tr. (“Tr.”), at 3-4. He further acknowledged that this case was not the first in which he had fallen short of his obligations. See id. at 6. But he suggested that his failings were due to his health — that he was being treated for “complications for long COVID, COVID pneumonia” and had “consistently” gone to “different doctors” since being hospitalized in May 2023. Id. at 4, 6. He insisted that he was “balancing right now [his] livelihood and [his] health.” Id. at 6. In response to a query from the Court about whether and when he had advised his client about the voluntary dismissal of the case, Mr. Saab revealed that he had done so only “[a]bout an hour” earlier — approximately three full days after the voluntary dismissal was filed. Id. at 7. He insisted that his client was “aware that some cases have been affected by [his] health” and represented that his client had given him “authority on these cases.” Id. Finding Mr. Saab’s explanations inadequate to justify his repeated and egregious failures, the Court ordered him to pay $5,000 to the Clerk of Court as a sanction for “wasting [the Court's] time, wasting the [C]ourt’s resources, and making [the Court] continually chase [him] down to ensure that [he] compl[ies] with [his] responsibilities.” Id. at 12.1 In addition, the Court ordered Mr. Saab to file (1) a declaration from his client “attesting that [the client] was made aware of the dismissal of this case, and attesting that [the client] had given [Mr. Saab] authority to dismiss cases without” prior notice or permission; and (2) documentation of his medical condition. Id. at 12-13. The Court reserved judgment on whether to impose additional sanctions subject to its review of these supplemental submissions. Id. at 13. Mr. Saab filed both submissions on January 29, 2024, and paid the sanctions on February 5, 2024. See ECF Nos. 38, 40. Mr. Saab’s letter regarding his medical condition — which the Court has filed under seal, see ECF Nos. 39, 40 (sealed), 41 — does, broadly speaking, corroborate the representations he made to the Court about his medical condition, namely that he contracted COVID-19 on or about April 3, 2023; that he was hospitalized briefly in May 2023; that he has since been diagnosed with “long COVID”; and that he has had approximately fifteen doctor appointments since April 2023 to attend to various symptoms. The Court is certainly sympathetic to Mr. Saab’s health challenges and wishes him well. But they do not justify or excuse his repeated and flagrant violations of court orders in this case (let alone others). For one thing, a lawyer’s ethical obligations — to his client and to the Court — do not cease because of health challenges. See, e.g., N.Y. R. Pro. Conduct §1.3(a)-(b) (providing that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client” and “shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer”); id. §1.1(a)-(b) (“Competent representation requires the…thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.…A lawyer shall not handle a legal matter that the lawyer knows or should know that the lawyer is not competent to handle.”). In fact, Rule 1.16(b) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct expressly provides that “a lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client when…the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client,” id. §1.16(b) (emphasis added), a requirement that was plainly triggered in this case if Mr. Saab’s health issues really did cause his failures. But more broadly, Mr. Saab’s attempt to justify his failure to comply with nearly every deadline in this case is belied by his conduct since April 3, 2023, when he apparently contracted COVID-19. Since that date, he has filed 221 cases (including this one) in this District and another 33 cases in the Eastern District, for a total of 254 cases.2 Even more remarkably, Mr. Saab has filed eight new cases in the two Districts since he appeared before this Court on January 22, 2024, and sought the Court’s mercy on the ground that he was too sick to comply with the litigation demands of this case alone.3 Put simply, it is hard to reconcile Mr. Saab’s excuse for his conduct in this case when, in the relevant period, he voluntarily filed this and 253 other cases. This compels the conclusion that Mr. Saab either is exaggerating his health challenges or has routinely filed cases despite knowing that his physical condition would “materially impair[]” his “ ability to represent [his] client[s].” N.Y. R. Pro. Conduct §1.16(b). Either way, Mr. Saab’s conduct here and in this District generally fell far short of minimal professional standards. The declaration from Mr. Saab’s client is, while brief, also broadly consistent with Mr. Saab’s representations at the hearing. In particular, Mr. Castro affirms that Mr. Saab called him on January 22, 2024, and advised that this case had been “dismissed due to an agreement to resolve the lawsuit with the Defendant.” ECF No. 38, 3.4 He further states that he had given Mr. Saab “authority to speak on [his] behalf and authority to dismiss a case unilaterally without [his] prior consent” and, “[a]s such,” he “also consent[s] to the dismissal of this action.” Id. 4. That said, the declaration begs more questions than it answers. To begin, Mr. Castro’s declaration confirms that Mr. Saab informed his client of the voluntary dismissal three business days after the fact, potentially in violation of the Rule requiring that a lawyer “promptly inform” his client “of…material developments in the matter.” N.Y. R. Pro. Conduct §1.4(a)(1)(iii). Query also whether Mr. Saab informed Mr. Castro about the “material developments” that preceded, and presumably led to, the dismissal (namely, Mr. Saab’s violations of multiple Orders and this Court’s Order to Show Cause); the declaration does not say. Mr. Castro’s declaration and the sequence of events suggest that Mr. Saab may also have violated Rule 1.2, which makes plain that the decision whether to settle a case rests with the client, not counsel; requires counsel to “abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation”; and mandates that counsel “consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.” Id. §1.2(a); see also, e.g., Mora v. Bareburger Grp. LLC, No. 16-CV-4373 (FB) (RML), 2018 WL 4522086, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018) (“While it is certainly permissible, and indeed routine, for lawyers to sign voluntary dismissals on their clients’ behalf, that signature is intended to represent their clients’ decision to voluntarily dismiss the action….” (citing, inter alia, N.Y. R. Pro. Conduct §§1.2(a), 1.4(a)(1)(i)) (emphasis added)), report and recommendation adopted in relevant part, 2018 WL 4954088 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2018). More broadly, the overall arrangement between Mr. Saab and Mr. Castro raises troubling questions. First, in light of the Rules discussed above, it is not immediately apparent that it is proper for a lawyer to accept from his client, and then exercise, unilateral authority to voluntarily dismiss the client’s cases without the client’s prior approval in each case. Second, even assuming such an arrangement is proper, such an attorney-client relationship would cast doubt on who the real party in interest is in Mr. Saab’s cases. In the last two years, Mr. Saab has filed a total of sixty cases on Mr. Castro’s behalf challenging websites for products ranging from dog-training collars to insulated water bottles to Star Wars-themed clothing to cowboy hats to Irish kilts.5 In each one, Mr. Castro has alleged that he was unable to acquire goods or services because of access barriers on the website at issue and that, if those barriers were removed, he “intends” to revisit the website to make a purchase. E.g., ECF 1,
