'We Draw the Line at Gibberish': US Appeals Court Sanctions Lawyer for 'Incoherent' Brief
The lawyer apologized and accepted responsibility. But sanctions—fees and costs—were still ordered. "The defendants were put to the burden and expense of sorting through and defending against a patently frivolous appeal," a Seventh Circuit panel said.
December 17, 2019 at 02:12 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
An Illinois attorney lambasted last month by a federal appeals panel for submitting a "bizarre" and "incoherent" court filing was ordered Monday to pay legal fees as a sanction for wasting the resources of the court and the defense lawyers who defeated alleged discrimination claims.
The lawyer, Jordan T. Hoffman, apologized to the court in late November, asserting that he made a "grave error in judgment" in agreeing to represent a longtime friend in the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That friend, Hoffman said, wrote and filed the brief under Hoffman's name.
"I realize again that these were all grave errors of judgment and I can only apologize to the court and promise that I will never allow this [to] occur again," Hoffman told the Seventh Circuit panel. "I have suffered through the most embarrassing and stressful moments of my legal career and perhaps my life during the oral argument and after the publication of the court's opinion." He continued: "My reputation has been tarnished at the highest level as a result of my actions that caused such a scathing opinion in this matter."
That opinion—written by Judge Diane Sykes, joined by Judges Michael Scudder and Amy St. Eve—indeed skewered Hoffman, a solo practitioner in Aurora, Illinois, for bringing what the court called an "utterly frivolous" appeal. "This appeal represents a shameful waste of judicial resources," Sykes wrote.
The court described Hoffman's brief as a "monstrosity"—laden with unsupported factual assertions. The brief, according to the appeals court, was "chock-full of impenetrable arguments and unsupported assertions, and it is organized in ways that escape our understanding." The court concluded Hoffman violated a federal appellate procedure rule that mandates parties submit briefs that make "a succinct, clear and accurate statement of the arguments."
"Bad writing does not normally warrant sanctions, but we draw the line at gibberish," Sykes said.
Such strong admonitions from courts are rare, but they've flourished, for better or worse, in recent days.
In a New York federal appeal last week, a panel admonished an attorney and ordered him removed from the courtroom for what one judge called "disrespectful" and "discourteous" behavior toward the court. A California federal judge on Monday demanded the resignation of a lawyer who'd written a series of profanity-laced emails to opposing counsel in an insurance-related dispute. "I will not do that," the lawyer responded.
Hoffman, a member of the Illinois bar since 1987, was not reached for comment Tuesday. In his court apology last month, Hoffman said he had "embarrassed the venerable profession of law and the bar to which I have enjoyed the privilege of being a member." He told the court that up until now his "competence has not been called into question nor have I been accused of engaging in non-meritorious claims or litigation."
At oral argument, the Seventh Circuit panel pressed Hoffman about his brief. He told the court that he is a solo practitioner and that he tries to "get the help of … clients and whoever can provide help."
The appeals court called Hoffman's acceptance of responsibility "appropriate." But the panel was not letting him off the hook.
"Still, judicial resources were needlessly consumed, and the defendants were put to the burden and expense of sorting through and defending against a patently frivolous appeal," Sykes said Monday. "Sanctions are therefore warranted."
Hoffman was ordered to pay fees and "double costs" to the law firms Jackson Lewis and Pennsylvania-based Harmon & Davies for their work in the appeal on behalf of management firm Kenco Logistics Services LLC and the candy maker Mars Inc. Tom Davies, a lawyer for Mars, said Tuesday, "We are pleased with the outcome of the case."
The appeals court set a Jan. 3 deadline for the defense lawyers to file a statement of fees and costs.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readOn Governor's Desk: NY 'Death Gamble' Bill That Seeks to Correct Pension Anomaly for Judges
'Serious Misconduct' From Monsanto Lawyer Prompts Mistrial in Chicago Roundup Case
3 minute readCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 2OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 34th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 4Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 5How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250