Silly Lawyer Tricks XX. The traditional rules still apply?three strikes and you're out!

• Author: Tom Donlon
• Pages: 14-18

Appellate Practice

Spring 2020, Vol. 39No. 3

© 2020by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rig hts reserved. This information or any portion thereof maynot be

copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent

of the American Bar Association.

14

June 19, 2020

Silly Lawyer Tricks XX

The traditional rules still apply—three strikes and you’re

out!

By Tom Donlon

Royce v. Michael R. Needle P.C., 950 F.3d 939 (7th Cir.

2020)

There may not be many baseball games played in the current climate, but one attorney

learned that the traditional rules still apply—three strikes and you’re out!

The attorney started the game off very well. After litigating a RICO claim for several years,

he and his local counsel settled the case for $4.2 million.Id.at 944. Unfortunately, at that

point, greed set in. The lawyer claimed that he andcocounsel were entitled to almost 60

percent of the settlement. The clients—and cocounsel—disagreed because a written

contingent fee agreement set attorney fees at one-third.Id.at 943. This led to extra innings

with “a long, tortured history.”Id.The legal issues were not unduly complex or novel, but

the attorney “protracted it every step of the way.”Id.He “routinely and unapologetically

tested the district court’s patience, disregarded court orders, and caused unnecessary

delays.”Id.Yet, in the end, he lost the game.

The district court first rejected the attorney’s attempt to grab 60 percent of the settlement.

It concluded that his arguments on this issue “were ‘not merely wrong but frivolous,

disregarding what anyone having taken a first-year contracts class could identify’ . . . and

‘utterly devoid of merit.’”Id.at 945. Strike one!

The next pitch concerned how the contractual one-third contingent fee would be split

between the attorney and his cocounsel. Although the attorney himself had drafted a fee-

splitting agreement, he still tried to claim more than his share.Id.The district court

rejected this claim as well. Strike two!

Then the curveball—the counsel representing the attorney withdrew (actually, two

different firms withdrew). The attorneysought to appear pro hac vice, which the district

court initially allowed. However, the court later revoked the attorney’s pro hac

viceadmission—twice.Id.at 946–47. The attorney’s conduct was so objectionable that the

district court ended up sanctioning the attorney—four times. Strike three!