Federal Rule 11: Basic Guidelines for Avoiding Sanctions
| Publication year | 1987 |
| Pages | 2167 |
1987, December, Pg. 2167. Federal Rule 11: Basic Guidelines for Avoiding Sanctions
In 1983, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended to expand significantly the responsibilities imposed on an attorney who signs a pleading or other paper filed with a federal court. Since then, federal judges have seemingly started to feel more comfortable in granting motions for sanctions or even imposing sanctions on their own motion. As a result, attorneys have become increasingly aware of the obligations imposed by Rule 11 and are apparently more careful in investigating facts and the law before presenting pleadings, motions or arguments to the federal courts.
Notwithstanding this heightened awareness, attorneys continue to feel the sting of Rule 11. This article reviews the basic mandates of Rule 11 and discusses specific cases to illustrate situations in which sanctions have been applied.
Although abuse of judicial process was first statutorily addressed as early as 1813, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper(fn1) prompted Congress to expand Rule 11 to permit recovery of expenses and attorney's fees in addition to costs. It was perceived that a need existed for more effective means for deterring abuse and misuse. Thus, Rule 11 was amended in 1983, along with Rules 16, 26 and 37.
As noted in the Advisory Committee's notes to Rule 11, previous experience with Rule 11 had shown it to be ineffective in deterring abuses:
[C]onsiderable confusion had existed as to (1) the circumstances that would trigger striking a pleading or motion or taking disciplinary action, (2) the standard of conduct expected of attorneys who sign pleadings and motions and (3) the range of available and appropriate sanctions.
In an effort to overcome the previously existing shortcomings in the Rule, the 1983 amendment made material changes to Rule 11, the most significant of which set out that:
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
These three basic requirements are examined individually in this article.
Rule 11 operates by giving effect to the signature of the attorney or party on a pleading, motion or other paper. Inherent in the Rule now is a proviso that allows sanctions against the principal, firm or other body ultimately responsible for the decision to file the paper which poses the problem.
This addition to the Rule was necessary because the person signing the paper might not be the one responsible for its issuance. For example, an associate in a law firm charged with preparing and filing a paper may be carrying out the instructions of a partner who had made the decision to file it. In such a situation, sanctions are "more appropriately imposed on the principal rather than the agent carrying out his orders, and nothing in the rule bars its application in that manner."(fn2)
A similar situation arises in cases where a paper is signed and filed by local counsel at the direction of out-of-state counsel. In emphasizing this particular application of the Rule, the district court in Coburn Optical Industries, Inc. v. Cilco, Inc.(fn3) held:
Although out of state counsel did not sign the motion to dismiss or transfer it would appear that those attorneys prepared these documents and has [sic] been lead counsel for the defendant up to this point. It would subvert the purpose of Rule 11 to allow an attorney to hide behind another merely because a local district court rule requires the signature of local counsel. Rule 11 allows the imposition
of sanctions against the party responsible for the paper.
The Court finds that local counsel must share liability for attorney's fees and costs imposed on defendant and its lead counsel arising from the filing of defendant's motion to dismiss. Local counsel's signature is solely affixed to this motion. Local counsel seemed blindly to follow the commands of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial