Much has been written about whether the complaint filed by state attorneys general challenging the constitutionality of the new health care law — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — will result in a judgment holding the law to be unconstitutional. But the real question that should be asked is whether the court should require the attorneys who brought the case to pay personally the costs that the federal government will incur in defending it.
As we all know, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires an attorney filing a pleading in federal court to certify that “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law” and “the factual contentions have evidentiary support.” The court can sanction an attorney who violates this rule, including an obligation to pay the costs and reasonable attorney fees of the opposing party.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
