Section 9.13 Sanctions Against Attorneys

• Library: App Ct Prac 2015 Supp

E. (§9.13) Sanctions Against Attorneys

There is a growing trend in the appellate courts to assess sanctions against attorneys. Before 1993, the appellate courts rarely, if ever, assessed sanctions against attorneys. In an article written in 1986, the author stated that he found no Missouri cases or authority to cite requiring counsel to pay damages for a frivolous appeal. Steven M. Gray, Sanctions Against Attorneys for Frivolous Filings, 42 J. MoBar 391, 392 (September 1986). But the author noted that Rule 55.03 did appear to expose counsel to liability for a frivolous pleading or motion. Id.

Since that article, the appellate courts have assessed sanctions against appellate counsel under Rule 84.19, while generally referring to Rule 55.03 for analogy. The first such case this author found is Jones v. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, 769 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989). The Western District, apparently noting the dearth of cases assessing sanctions against counsel, stated that “[n]either Rule 84.19 nor the cases limit damages to be assessed only as to the litigant.” Id. at 148. The court stated there were circumstances when the attorney should also bear the cost, citing Rule 55.03 as an analogous situation. Id. “The attorney in a case such as this not only owes the client a duty of representation, but a duty to quell further litigation of a groundless appeal.” Id. at 148. In this instance, however, the court only assessed $250 against the appellant and declined to assess sanctions against the appellant’s attorney. Id.

Citing Jones, 769 S.W.2d 145, as authority to assess damages against an attorney, the Eastern District assessed sanctions of $2,000 for a frivolous...