Attorney faces possible sanctions for ignoring precedent, rules 7th Circuit.

Byline: David Ziemer

An attorney who overzealously pursued attorney fees from the opposing party may wind up having to pay the opponent's fees instead.

The Seventh Circuit held that, because the attorney ignored binding precedents, instead of preserving an argument for reversing them in the Supreme Court, he must now show cause why he should not be sanctioned and ordered to pay costs and fees.

Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote for the court, [T]his appeal involves one issue only and that is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees. The answer to that question is governed solely and completely by a Supreme Court case never mentioned anywhere in the plaintiffs' brief or even in their reply: Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services, 532 U.S. 598 (2001).

The case began when the parents of Sam Bingham, a high school student in New Berlin, requested a due process hearing with the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, claiming the school district failed to comply with the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Prior to a scheduled hearing, the district paid the Binghams $15,638 -- the amount they requested -- but without admitting liability.

The Binghams requested that they be awarded attorney fees as a prevailing party, but the Division of Hearings and Appeals dismissed the proceeding as moot.

The Binghams appealed to the district court, which dismissed the action, and the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed.

The court noted that the Binghams spent much of their briefs discussing the facts of the case, but not the applicable law established in Buckhannon.

In Buckhannon, the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of attorneys'...