Matt's Corner: What Are Rule 11 Sanctions?
FRCP 11(c) allows a federal court to impose the least severe penalty to deter repetition upon a law firm, counsel or a party.
August 20, 2024 at 11:05 AM
2 minute read
Matthew B. Weisberg of Weisberg Law. Courtesy photo
Matt's Corner: Questions and Answers on Professional Responsibility and Legal Malpractice
Question: What are Rule 11 sanctions?
A: FRCP 11(c) allows a federal court to impose the least severe penalty to deter repetition upon a law firm, counsel or a party.
Whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
- it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
- the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
- the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
- the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. FRCP 11(b).
Upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, Rule 11 sanctions may be invoked by motion of adverse party or sua sponte. FRCP 11(c)(2) and (3). If upon motion of adversary, the motion must be presented 21 days (safe harbor) prior to its filing to allow the offending conduct to be corrected.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 All![Lackawanna County Lawyer Fails to Shake Legal Mal Claims Over Sex With Client Lackawanna County Lawyer Fails to Shake Legal Mal Claims Over Sex With Client](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/09/Lackawanna-County-Courthouse-767x633-4.jpg)
Lackawanna County Lawyer Fails to Shake Legal Mal Claims Over Sex With Client
3 minute read![Court Sanctions Attorney $7.5K for Filing Repeated Erroneous Complaints Court Sanctions Attorney $7.5K for Filing Repeated Erroneous Complaints](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2022/10/Attorney-Discipline-767x633-2.jpg)
Court Sanctions Attorney $7.5K for Filing Repeated Erroneous Complaints
5 minute read![Matt's Corner: Legal Malpractice as It Relates to Ethical Violations Matt's Corner: Legal Malpractice as It Relates to Ethical Violations](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2022/01/Matthew-Weisberg-767x633.jpg)
![Former Sacks Weston Partner Faces 5-Year Suspension Over Mail, Wire Fraud Conviction Former Sacks Weston Partner Faces 5-Year Suspension Over Mail, Wire Fraud Conviction](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/04/Disbarred-lawyer-767x633.jpg)
Former Sacks Weston Partner Faces 5-Year Suspension Over Mail, Wire Fraud Conviction
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.