Seventh Circuit Clarifies That Lawyers Can Appeal Nonmonetary Sanctions

25 May 2016 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog
Authors: Thomas L. Shriner Jr

Imagine that, at the end of a case, the judge decides to impose sanctions on you for the way in which you have handled discovery, or done something at trial. In the order requiring you and your client to pay your opponent some money, the judge holds forth at length as to the ways in which your conduct has fallen below the standards of appropriate professional behavior, including saying that your actions reflected dishonesty or were taken in bad faith. You want to appeal the sanctions order, but your client has had enough of the case and pays the entire financial portion of the sanctions order. Can you still appeal the judge’s finding that you have misbehaved in a way that is improper and sanctionable?

Your natural reaction is likely that of course you can appeal the nonmonetary sanction. How else can you rescue your reputation from the harm worked by the sanctions order?

Yet, until the May 23 decision in Martinez v. City of Chicago, (7th Cir. No. 15-2752), the Seventh Circuit’s case law would likely not have permitted you to appeal the nonmonetary sanction.

The doctrinal trail begins with Bolte v. Home Ins. Co., 744 F.2d 572, 753 (7th Cir. 1984), which held that “critical comments by a district judge” are not appealable orders. In Bolte, the judge had issued no sanctions order but had criticized a couple of lawyers while ruling on another motion. Then, in Clark Equip. Co. v. Lift Parts Mfg. Co., 972 F.2d 817 (7th Cir. 1992), the district court imposed sanctions in an order that was critical of the attorney’s conduct. The client settled the case and agreed to pay the sanctions, leading the Seventh Circuit to vacate the sanctions order as moot, but not the lower court’s reprimand of the lawyer. The court cited the inapposite Bolte for the proposition that “an attorney may not appeal from an order that finds misconduct but does not result in monetary liability, despite the potential reputational effects.” Id. at 820.

A very similar situation arose in Martinez. The district court imposed both monetary and nonmonetary sanctions on a lawyer in the Cook County prosecutor’s office for discovery abuse in a civil case to which the office was a witness whose files had been subpoenaed. The office paid the monetary sanction, but the lawyer appealed, seeking to defend her professional reputation. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal for mootness, relying on Clark.

In an opinion by Judge Richard Posner, the Seventh Circuit overruled Clark, noting that the case law in eight other circuits disagreed with it. So now it is clear that a lawyer in this situation can appeal a nonmonetary sanction. Unfortunately for the appellant, the court (with its jurisdiction of the appeal secure) found the district court’s criticisms of her behavior “apt and accurate” and affirmed the court’s exercise of discretion in entering the sanctions order.

 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.