Philip Shawe.

Attorneys from Potter Anderson & Corroon are asking a Delaware federal judge to approve a nationwide filing injunction and monetary sanctions against Philip R. Shawe and his Delaware counsel, after the TransPerfect co-founder accused the firm of making a misleading application for attorney fees in court documents.

Potter Anderson and Kevin R. Shannon, a partner at the firm, on Tuesday blasted Shawe's $75,000 tort claim, calling it a meritless and a bad faith attempt to relitigate issues already in the Delaware state courts.

In a court filing, the firm said the complaint was yet another in a series of “habitually filed baseless lawsuits” aimed at attacking people aligned with his former business partner, and called for a prohibition against any further litigation stemming from the Chancery Court dispute.

“The complaint is frivolous, harassing and vexatious—among many other descriptors of a
bad-faith filing,” Potter Anderson said in support of its motion.

An attorney for the firm continued: “Anything short of a nationwide filing injunction will not effectively prevent Shawe from continuing to abuse court processes without regard to the meritlessness of his claims or the costs and burdens he imposes on his litigation targets and the limited resources of the courts.”

Shawe declined to comment Wednesday on the substance of Potter Anderson's sanctions motion.

In September, Shawe accused Shannon and Potter Anderson of fudging the numbers in sworn affidavits last year documenting the firm's expenses related to its work on behalf of Elizabeth Elting, who had founded TransPerfect with Shawe in 1992 but was suing at the time to dissolve the firm amid intractable corporate gridlock.

Ultimately, Shawe was sanctioned $7 million for litigation misconduct, including lying under oath. He was ordered to pay all of Elting's fees in conjunction with the sanctions hearing, plus one-third of Elting's legal fees for litigating the trial on the merits.

According to Shawe, the firm had failed to itemize any support for $1.4 million in fees that it said it had billed to its client, Elting. The omission, Shawe said, had made it impossible for the court to determine how much of that total Shawe would have to cover for Elting.

“Defendants' conduct was improperly made solely to harm Shawe because it served
no legitimate litigation goal, and provided no benefit to defendant. Further, by filing the subject affidavit and deceiving the Court of Chancery defendants violated their ethical responsibilities,” said Shawe's attorney Christopher M. Coggins.

Coggins, of Coggins Law, was not immediately available to comment.

Ultimately, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard approved Potter Anderson's calculation of more than $466,000 over Shawe's objections. The decision was later upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court.

Through Coggins, Shawe said in the complaint that the chancellor's decision to accept the fees without itemization raised the “appearance of favoritism.” However, the filing made no specific assertions regarding Bouchard beyond a footnote, which listed “anecdotal facts” regarding the professional relationship between the two men.

Shannon and another Potter Anderson attorney representing the firm did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment on the litigation.

Potter Anderson's sanctions motion comes as state and federal courts have increasingly turned away other lawsuits from Shawe, stemming from TransPerfect's Delaware Court of Chancery-ordered sale.

In one case, New York Supreme Court Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich issued a clear warning that Shawe refrain from filing any more cases in New York state court, and floated the possibility that any further litigation in that state would be met with a filing injunction.

In Tuesday's filing, Potter Anderson said the time had come to put an end to Shawe's “repeated abuse” of the litigation process.

“It is not enough to simply dismiss the complaint and award monetary sanctions against him and Coggins,” the firm said. “There can be no doubt that Shawe will simply file more frivolous litigation until he is enjoined from doing so. Shawe's abusive conduct must be stopped.”

The case is captioned Shawe v. Potter Anderson & Corroon.

Philip Shawe.

Attorneys from Potter Anderson & Corroon are asking a Delaware federal judge to approve a nationwide filing injunction and monetary sanctions against Philip R. Shawe and his Delaware counsel, after the TransPerfect co-founder accused the firm of making a misleading application for attorney fees in court documents.

Potter Anderson and Kevin R. Shannon, a partner at the firm, on Tuesday blasted Shawe's $75,000 tort claim, calling it a meritless and a bad faith attempt to relitigate issues already in the Delaware state courts.

In a court filing, the firm said the complaint was yet another in a series of “habitually filed baseless lawsuits” aimed at attacking people aligned with his former business partner, and called for a prohibition against any further litigation stemming from the Chancery Court dispute.

“The complaint is frivolous, harassing and vexatious—among many other descriptors of a
bad-faith filing,” Potter Anderson said in support of its motion.

An attorney for the firm continued: “Anything short of a nationwide filing injunction will not effectively prevent Shawe from continuing to abuse court processes without regard to the meritlessness of his claims or the costs and burdens he imposes on his litigation targets and the limited resources of the courts.”

Shawe declined to comment Wednesday on the substance of Potter Anderson's sanctions motion.

In September, Shawe accused Shannon and Potter Anderson of fudging the numbers in sworn affidavits last year documenting the firm's expenses related to its work on behalf of Elizabeth Elting, who had founded TransPerfect with Shawe in 1992 but was suing at the time to dissolve the firm amid intractable corporate gridlock.

Ultimately, Shawe was sanctioned $7 million for litigation misconduct, including lying under oath. He was ordered to pay all of Elting's fees in conjunction with the sanctions hearing, plus one-third of Elting's legal fees for litigating the trial on the merits.

According to Shawe, the firm had failed to itemize any support for $1.4 million in fees that it said it had billed to its client, Elting. The omission, Shawe said, had made it impossible for the court to determine how much of that total Shawe would have to cover for Elting.

“Defendants' conduct was improperly made solely to harm Shawe because it served
no legitimate litigation goal, and provided no benefit to defendant. Further, by filing the subject affidavit and deceiving the Court of Chancery defendants violated their ethical responsibilities,” said Shawe's attorney Christopher M. Coggins.

Coggins, of Coggins Law, was not immediately available to comment.

Ultimately, Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard approved Potter Anderson's calculation of more than $466,000 over Shawe's objections. The decision was later upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court.

Through Coggins, Shawe said in the complaint that the chancellor's decision to accept the fees without itemization raised the “appearance of favoritism.” However, the filing made no specific assertions regarding Bouchard beyond a footnote, which listed “anecdotal facts” regarding the professional relationship between the two men.

Shannon and another Potter Anderson attorney representing the firm did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment on the litigation.

Potter Anderson's sanctions motion comes as state and federal courts have increasingly turned away other lawsuits from Shawe, stemming from TransPerfect's Delaware Court of Chancery-ordered sale.

In one case, New York Supreme Court Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich issued a clear warning that Shawe refrain from filing any more cases in New York state court, and floated the possibility that any further litigation in that state would be met with a filing injunction.

In Tuesday's filing, Potter Anderson said the time had come to put an end to Shawe's “repeated abuse” of the litigation process.

“It is not enough to simply dismiss the complaint and award monetary sanctions against him and Coggins,” the firm said. “There can be no doubt that Shawe will simply file more frivolous litigation until he is enjoined from doing so. Shawe's abusive conduct must be stopped.”

The case is captioned Shawe v. Potter Anderson & Corroon.