South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

Judge Condemns Attorneys for Outrageous Behavior

It is sometimes hard to believe how uncivil and unreasonable attorneys can act toward one another.  At least one judge has had enough of such behavior, and he let the attorneys and their clients know his thoughts of their conduct very loudly and clearly.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin, Texas issued an order a few years ago in which the attorneys had a history of filings and antagonistic motions full of personal insults requiring multiple discovery hearings.  It was so bad that the judge said that he feels like he is supervising kindergarten, because the lawyers involved in a civil suit in his court are acting like they never learned how to get along with others.

Judge Sparks was so outraged by the attorneys' conduct that he threatened to order the parties in that case to find new lawyers "if the lawyers in this case do not change, immediately, their manner of practice and start conducting themselves as competent to practice in the federal court."

While there are exceptions, we are fortunate here in South Carolina that the vast majority of attorneys are civil to one another and do abide by the rules, both in word and in sprit.  I cannot stand the thought of having to deal with someone acting the way that the attorneys in Judge Sparks' case were acting, and personally, I am glad that he dealt with them as harshly as he did.

The full text of Judge Sparks' Order is set forth below:

ORDER

Be it remembered on the 21st day of July 2004 and the Court took time to make its daily review of the above-captioned case, and thereafter, enters the following:

When the undersigned accepted the appointment from the President of the United States of the position now held, he was ready to face the daily practice of law in federal courts with presumably competent lawyers. No one warned the undersigned that in many instances his responsibility would be the same as a person who supervised kindergarten.

Frankly, the undersigned would guess the lawyers in this case did not attend kindergarten as they never learned how to get along well with others. Notwithstanding the history of filings and antagonistic motions full of personal insults and requiting multiple discovery hearings, earning the disgust of this Court, the lawyers continue ad infinitum.

On July 20, 2004, the Court's schedule was interrupted by an emergency motion so the parties' deposition, which began on July 20, would and could proceed until 6:30 in the evening. No intelligent discussion of the issue was accomplished prior to the filing and service of the motion, even though the lawyers were in the same room. Over a telephone conference, the lawyers, of course, had inconsistent statements as to the support of their positions. On July 20, 2004, the Court entered an order allowing the plaintiffs/counter-defendants until July 23, 2004 two days from today to answer a counterclaim. Yet, on July 21, 2004, Bodyworx.com, Inc.'s lawyers filed a motion for reconsideration of that Court order arguing the pleadings should have been filed by July 19, 2004.

The Court simply wants to scream to these lawyers, "Get a life" or "Do you have any other cases?" or "When is the last time you registered for anger management classes?" Neither the world's problems nor this case will be determined by an answer to a counterclaim, which is four days late, even with the approval of the presiding judge.

If the lawyers in this case do not change, immediately, their manner of practice and start conducting themselves as competent to practice in the federal court, the Court will contemplate and may enter an order requiring the parties to obtain new counsel.

In the event it is not clear from the above discussion, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Signed this the 21st day of July 2004.

Sam Sparks
United States District Judge

Source:  "'Antagonistic Motions' Spark Retort From Judge" by Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, pubilshed at Law.com.

Motorola Faces Sanctions for Violating Court Orders During Trade Secrets Trial

I posted an article last week about "how not to act in court", which discussed the Court sentencing a party to jail time for his contemptous actions inside the courtroom.  However, it's not only half-witted individuals who act in such a way that makes the rest of us shake our heads.  For instance, even large corporations, such as Motorola, can find themselves in a similar situation.

SPS Technologies sued Motorola in 2002 for $10 billion, claiming that Motorola stole trade secrets to create a vehicle-tracking device.  An eight week trial in Broward, Florida ended in November of 2006 when the jury was unable to reach a verdict.  However, Circuit Judge Leroy Moe recently found that Motorola willfully violated court orders, which might subject it to millions in fines, attorney fees, and trial costs.

Specifically, Judge Moe determined that Motorola placed experts on the stand who previously had read other witnesses' testimony.  Motorola's actions violated the witness sequestration order he imposed at the start of the trial and prejudiced the plaintiff's case.  In fact, during the hearing on this issue, Judge Moe said he "almost threw up" during the trial when Motorola's expert witnesses acknowledged they had read the testimony of plaintiff experts before going on the stand. He said this action was prejudicial and that "sanctions are in order."

Shame on Motorola for attempting to play fast and loose with the rules in that case.  Kudos to the trial judge for taking steps to impose punishment for violation of his order.  It is steps such as these that will discourage others from attempting similar antics in the future.

Source:  "Motorola Faces Sanctions for Violating Court Orders During Trade Secrets Trial" by Jordana Mishory, published at Law.com.

How NOT to Behave in Court

As posted on my South Carolina Family Law Blog:

The SC Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court's decision to hold a party in contempt of court for (a) making an obscene finger gesture to his attorney after the hearing concluded and (b) using profanity directed at the judge.  While most people would certainly not act as outrageously as the man in this case, it serves as a good reminder that parties should always be on their best behavior in Court.

In this case, the party apparently "flipped off” the attorney and then told the judge “f**k you, you bastard.”  Even after being held in contempt and sentenced to serve a year in jail for his contemptous actions, the party was still not finished.  On his way out of the courtroom, he apparently fought with the deputies, only to be brought back in to be chastised by the judge.   For his antics, the judge sentenced him to two, six-month sentences for contempt, to be served consecutively consecutively to each other, for a total of one year in jail.

The Court of Appeals held that all courts have the inherent power to punish for contempt to preserve order and maintain decorum in judicial proceedings.  Contemptuous conduct in the presence of the court is direct contempt, and South Carolina courts have taken an expansive view of the “presence” and “court” requirements to encompass all elements of the judicial system, not just the mere physical presence of the judge or courtroom.  No warning of possible contempt is necessary.

In his appeal, the party argued that his sentence should be vacated because he was entitled to a jury trial.  The United States Supreme Court has held that petty crimes can generally be tried without a jury trial, but serious crimes require a jury trial if the accused requests one.  The distinction between a "petty" and "serious" crime is generally determined by the maximum punishment assigned by the legislature.  Crimes with punishments of six months or less are presumably “petty,” while crimes with punishments greater than six months are presumably “serious.”

In this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the two consecutive six-month sentences are the equivalent of a one-year sentence, which would normally entitle a defendant to a jury trial if he or she requested one.  However, the party in this case never requested a jury trial, and he never objected to the imposition of the contempt sentences without a jury trial.  For those reasons, the appellate court found that this issue was not preserved for appellate review, and it affirmed the trial court's sentences for contempt.

You can read the full opinion in Rhoad v. State by clicking HERE.