Lawyer Scolded by US Appeals Court Faces $73K Legal-Fee Sanction
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said it would order fees as a sanction against a lawyer whose appeal represented "a shameful waste of judicial resources." The firms Jackson Lewis P.C. and Harmon & Davies, which represented the corporate defendants, filed the fee requests.
January 03, 2020 at 08:15 PM
5 minute read
A federal appeals panel was asked Friday to award nearly $73,000 in legal fees and costs as a sanction against a Chicago-area lawyer who submitted a "monstrosity" of a court brief in a case the presiding judges described as a "shameful waste of judicial resources."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last month said the lawyer, Jordan T. Hoffman, would be required to pay "reasonable" legal fees for letting a client file a brief that the judges called "bizarre" and "incoherent." In November, Judge Diane Sykes declared in a rare admonition: "Bad writing does not normally warrant sanctions, but we draw the line at gibberish."
Attorneys who represented the corporate defendants in the labor and employment case—the candy maker Mars Inc. and Kenco Logistics Services LLC, which managed a Mars warehouse in Illinois—on Friday filed declarations and invoices showing legal services in the case cost about $73,000.
Jody Moran, a Jackson Lewis P.C. shareholder in Chicago and lead counsel for Kenco, said the firm was seeking about $30,700 in fees and costs. Jackson Lewis said it billed at $265 an hour for partners and $235 for associates, for Kenco.
"This rate is substantially less than the normal billing rate for the attorneys assigned to the case," Moran told the appeals court. Moran said she typically bills at $640 an hour, and senior associate Julia Argentieri, who worked on the case with her, charges $370 per hour.
"Our rates are equal to or less than that of other lawyers in medium-to-large Chicago law firms with similar backgrounds, qualifications, practices and experiences," Moran wrote in a declaration. Jackson Lewis has about 900 lawyers in more than 50 offices across the country.
Kimberly Overbaugh of the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, firm Harmon & Davies was lead counsel for Mars. The firm is seeking about $42,700 in fees and costs, according to its filing Friday in the Seventh Circuit.
Hoffman was not immediately reached for comment Friday about the fee petitions.
The Seventh Circuit's rebuke of Hoffman came in an employment discrimination case. The trial and appellate courts concluded there was insufficient evidence to support liability for any alleged discrimination.
Filings in Hoffman's case fell "far below the reasonable standards of practice," the appeals court said in its November ruling. At oral argument, confronted over his briefing, Hoffman told the court he is a solo practitioner who tries "to get the help of … clients and whoever can provide help to [him]."
"The patently frivolous nature of this appeal isn't the only thing that troubles us," Sykes said in its ruling for Mars and Kenco. The "hopelessness" of the case didn't deter the plaintiff or Hoffman "from signing and submitting a bizarre appellate brief laden with assertions that have no basis in the record and arguments that have no basis in the law."
Hoffman apologized to the appeals court in November, telling the panel he'd made a "grave error in judgment" in agreeing to represent a friend, the plaintiff, in the case. Hoffman said his friend 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 appeals 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."
Hoffman 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."
The appeals panel called Hoffman's acceptance of responsibility "appropriate," but the judges still concluded that sanctions were warranted.
"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," the judges said in their order last month.
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 AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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