There are good reasons for a lawyer to avoid insulting an opponent in court filings, Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote in an opinion Thursday. But the most important reason, he declared, is that "colorful insults" did nothing to prove his clients had the right to bring their lawsuit in the first place.

Thapar, writing for a unanimous panel, leveled pointed criticism at a Tennessee lawyer who, in the court's view, had gone too far in disparaging his opponents in an antitrust suit against Ballad Health, the Medical Education Assistance Corp. (MEAC) and various individuals.

Now and then, federal appeals courts offer their views—and guidance—on when advocacy stretches too far, or when a filing misses the mark. Several months ago, a Seventh Circuit called out a lawyer for a "bizarre" and "incoherent" brief. (It turned out his client wrote the brief.)

In the Tennessee case, in response to the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the lawyer, Francis Santore Jr., amended the complaint to add certain allegations. The appellate panel recounted several of them, including:

>> "That Ballad and MEAC are 'intertwined in an incestuous relationship, the likes of which have not been seen since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.'"

>> "That the Tennessee Department of Health's failure to supervise the defendants 'is akin to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation allowing criminals to rape, murder, pillage, loot and plunder on its watch, while its agents stand by.'"

>> "That 'a virus has been effectively introduced into the Ballad Board which has sickened all 11 directors, and which requires their permanent quarantine.'"

Santore was not immediately reached for comment Thursday afternoon.

The Sixth Circuit's ruling caught some quick attention on social media among appellate lawyers, who often share and discuss new rulings. A post at The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog described the ruling as "a reminder from Judge Thapar that insults and invective are no substitute for argument."

Thapar and his Sixth Circuit colleagues, Judges Julia Smith Gibbons and Richard Griffin, did devote their attention to Santore's claims. The court concluded that the trial judge got it right in dismissing the suit for a lack of jurisdiction. Santore's amended complaint, Thapar wrote, which was longer than the original, "added only insults, not an injury."

The language of Santore's claims did not escape the attention of the district court. "The court expects attorneys practicing before it, as officers of the court, to adhere to the highest standards of ethics," U.S. District Judge Curtis Collier of the Eastern District of Tennessee wrote. "The court does not approve of plaintiffs' counsel casting aspersions on individual defendants."

Thapar concluded the Sixth Circuit's ruling with additional thoughts on where the opinion began.

"Like the district court, we take a moment to remind plaintiffs' counsel that, as an officer of the court, he is expected to treat other parties in the case (as well as their counsel) with courtesy and professionalism. That is of course not to say that legal documents must be written in dry legalese," Thapar wrote. "Nor is it to criticize passionate and forceful advocacy in aid of a client's cause—a lawyerly virtue that counsel has displayed at points in this litigation."

Thapar continued: "But just as one cannot 'equate contempt with courage or insults with independence,' we cannot dismiss the disparaging statements in this case as mere stylistic flourishes or vigorous advocacy. Counsel will best serve his clients if he remembers this going forward."