Attorneys Sanctioned for Arguing about Arguing

welcome once again to lato's law here's steve lato keith sent me a story since stevenson caught my eye used a few of your favorite words and it involves two attorneys getting into a squabble a squabble and things like this didn't used to make national news but now they can because the way this works uh court filings uh in federal court in particular are available online and when somebody finds something like this they can simply post the link and say hey everybody check this out now what i've got in front of me is an order in a case that happened recently in the southern district of florida and it's unimportant doesn't matter who the parties are because it's it's someone suing a business but what matters here is the fact that the attorneys the attorney for the one side and the attorney for the other side started fighting not physically fighting but arguing squabbling that kind of thing and one of them requested that the court sanction the other not good when two kids get to fight the living room in trash living room and one of them calls in the parents uh it might not end well for both children and that's what's happening here so we have an order on a motion for an evidentiary hearing and sanctions so what happened was one of the parties requested that the court take a look at this and that's called emotion where you ask the court to do something and this is the order that resulted from that motion from that request and it says this matter came before the court upon plaintiff's motion for an evidentiary hearing and sanctions pursuance to the motion plaintiff's council seeks sanctions against defendants counsel based on uh alleged conduct at certain depositions in this case and depositions are where the parties outside of a courtroom can bring in a court reporter and bring in witnesses and question the witnesses under oath to find out what they would testify to if called to court or so on and depositions happen in quite a few cases parties are almost always deposed if depositions happen so if i sue you your attorney might take my deposition my trainer might take your deposition and then as witnesses their depositions might be taken also depends on the case okay so these two attorneys frequently represent opposing parties in fair labor standards act cases before this court so these are two attorneys who specialize one of them specializes in handling the plaintiff's cases and one of them specializes in defending the cases and as a result these two bump into each other a lot and apparently they've gotten along before this and i've mentioned before i do lemon law lemon law is a small community there's a handful of attorneys do this in most states some states aren't that many at all but in michigan we all know each other i know the members of the plaintiffs bar and i also know the guys who in gals who defend ford gm chrysler toyota hana nissan you name it and so i have had literally hundreds of cases with some of these attorneys they know me i know them we've had hundreds of cases together okay and so we get along we have to get along well it turns out that these two have had more than 20 cases against each other in this district over the past three years they even appeared as co-counsel in one case at one point in time they worked together until recently the judge writes the two have largely worked professionally with one another at the very least when they appeared in matters in this court they were generally respectful to each other that professionalism came to a screeching halt on both sides and this is why it's dangerous for the one attorney to say hey judge look what he's doing judge says instead they've started to engage in tit-for-tat squabbles and accusations that have done nothing but waste the court's time their own time and their clients money these are shenanigans that reasonable and professional attorneys do not engage in shenanigans uh one of the attorneys has already been sanctioned in this case for non-discovery related conduct and discovery is the whole process where you go through in civil litigation and try to you know see what the other side's case is all about and within reason you're allowed to find out what their witnesses are what their evidence is they've got to file a witness list and an exhibit list and you go through it you try to figure this stuff out in advance and you try to build your case up and you try to examine the other side's case in a lot of cases settle as a result of discovery when you find out the other side has an overwhelming case you settle says here though both attorneys have continued to engage in needless and inappropriate bickering in filings in this case and other cases pending before me they've continued to do so not withstanding the court's warnings that their conduct must cease and that they may be sanctioned if it does not the principle discovery dispute which is addressed in the motion and the briefing concerns the two attorneys conduct during depositions taken in this case in april of 2021 depositions of a non-party so this is this is not one of the people involved in the lawsuit directly this is presumably a witness so witness gets brought in to be deposed and stuff happened all three depths were conducted remotely by way of background a few weeks before the depsons case the two attorneys associates attended a deposition in a different case where both firms were involved according to one attorney at the beginning of that depth the court reporter indicated she could not hear the other attorney because of his face mask and asked him to remove it which he declined to do so then approximately two hours into the depth that attorney asked the court reporter whether she had transcribed a specific objection he had made and she stated she had not because she couldn't hear it he did not believe her and um pointed out that he claimed he was sitting equidistant from the microphone with respect to his client consequently that attorney stated that he objected to the deposition and that the court reporter was hostile towards him for the remainder of the deposition so you know this is the kind of bickering that it's already it's already gone too far now this this right here is not the kind of stuff that's going to cause sanctions but when you see this you're going look cooperate with the court reporter you want the court reporter to hear you and understand you so they can transcribe you properly that will help your case turning to depositions in the case the court has listened to recordings of the relevant portions of the first two depositions and has reviewed a transcript from the third based on the court's review of the foregoing the court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary when one of these depositions occurred the same court reporter from the earlier adept appeared therefore at the outset the attorney objected to the deposition proceeding with that court reporter believing the court reporter had not made an accurate transcript in the prior case and apparently believing that the inaccuracy was intentional the attorney did not want to proceed with the same court reporter regardless of whether his concerns regarding the court reporter were justified from an objective standpoint at that time they were at least justified from a subjective standpoint in objecting the attorney probably said more than what was necessary but that did not excuse what came up next specifically the other attorney yelled at him twice to shut the f up and f is just the first of four letters in that word at that point about two minutes into the deposition the other attorney disconnected from the remote deposition he then proceeded to seek the court's intervention and the first attorney also followed up with his own email so both attorneys then emailed the court now the court directs parties to seek a discovery hearing via email but the emails sent by both attorneys contained material far in excess of what is permitted under the court's discovery procedures order and federal court in particular is famous for giving you orders and instructions saying here's what you need to do both parties plaintiff defendant here you go you got to file this file this file this file this and by the way with this file you've got to do this this phone's got to do this and some of these things have subparts and and more subparts and it's like an outline with instructions and it'll say specifically if you need to contact the court here's what you need to do and and if the two of you need to contact the court get together discuss it and then two you can and it'll lay all this stuff out so it appears that both emails were unquestionably improper communications so both parties separately called the chambers of the court that's they call the judge's office directly to seek court intervention prior to sending their emails which was also inappropriate in light of the court's discovery procedures order based on those communications the court entered the order setting a telephonic discovery hearing and other requirements requiring the parties to confer and schedule a hearing for the following day in the event that the parties were unable to resolve their dispute the court specifically noted in the order that based on the descriptions of the dispute provided by plaintiff's council and defendants council the dispute appears to be one that councils should be able to resolve if they act reasonably and professionally so the two little kids are fighting in the sandbox they call the parents over parents look at it and go look you can you can take care of this yourselves just just be polite okay that's literally just boils down to act reasonably and professionally and and you could narrow it down just be polite so the order further warned council if the parties are unable to resolve all issues it is likely that one or both attorneys will be sanctioned in accordance with that order the two attorneys filed a joint notice of compliance wherein they represented to the court that they resolved all issues therefore the court canceled the hearing that was coming up the court later learned that the deposition had ultimately proceeded and was completed with the same court reporter now when the one attorney who complained and said that he thought the court reporter was ignoring him he returned after about 40 minutes he engaged in a dialogue with the court reporter followed by a dialogue with opposing counsel both of which served to unnecessarily further delay the deposition before it proceeded both of the attorney's actions prolonged the deposition and exacerbated matters so apparently they got in an argument before the deposition that may have included the court reporter the next deposition occurred was that of the non-party on april 27th the same court reporter was present consequently at the beginning the attorney was unhappy once again objected to using the court reporter however he said far more than what was necessary it is one thing to preserve an objection it is quite another to launch into the lengthy speaking objection that mr second attorney made he should have briefly objected and moved on or alternatively if warranted terminated the deposition and sought an order under the court rules so one of the things that you have to keep in mind is that if you make an objection on the record whether in court or to deposition once you've made your objection you're done now you may want to explain the objection just briefly objection relevance in a courtroom or objection privileged material at a deposition okay you raise your objection you identify your objection and you stop there's no need to go into a tirade a diatribe a lengthy dissertation there's no need to do any of those things no need because all you're doing is wasting time okay and and i hate to break news to you time is all we've got so if you're wasting time there you're you're it's it's bad but you're also wasting your clients time which is money you're wasting the court reporter's time and the court report is getting paid by by the hour but still it's it's it's just wasteful it's wasteful so the guy goes into this long objection which is not necessary which the court has found and says that this is inappropriate unfortunately in responding to questions from that attorney the court reporter made things worse rather than better but can you blame the court reporter at this point so then the attorney decided to raise things to the next level so there's there's a footnote here footnotes are often fun in federal court orders uh for example after stating his objection to proceeding with the court reporter and incorporating his description of the court reporter's failure to transcribe subjections and deposition of prior case the attorney asked her if she had transcribed his objection rather than simply saying yes she quibbled with whether what he had stated was an objection since testimony had not yet begun it's an interesting point nevertheless she made it clear that she had transcribed his statements because she could hear them rather than accepting the fact that she had transcribed his comments could hear him the attorney chose to prolong the semantic disagreement over whether his statements were an objection the other attorney then felt the need to chime in a back and forth squabble between the two attorneys then ensued including silly arguments over who had argued with whom so let's back up the two attorneys argued including silly arguments over who had argued with whom these are attorneys arguing over who's arguing he hit me no he hit me well he hit me first no he hit me first stop hitting yourself why are you hitting me why are you hitting yourself they're arguing over who is arguing it's like a perpetual motion machine or a cat chasing his tail ultimately that went on for 10 minutes you know i might want to buy a copy of this deposition when the parties returned for their third deposition the same court reporter was there the attorney began the deposition by asking and repeating the court reporter questions including whether she could hear him and whether she was transcribing everything he was saying and asking a court reporter are you writing down everything i'm saying is a stupid question that's what they do that's their job again is one thing for an attorney to ask a court reporter she can hear him but it is another to repeat the types of questions that he's been asking he then proceeded by making an objection similar to when he made the prior deposition once again saying far more than what was necessary and the two parties then once again engaged in an extended improper dialogue that served to only further delay and impede the deposition and further exacerbate the issues and remember there's an attorney making objections and arguing with a court reporter there's another attorney who's watching all this and occasionally interjecting and arguing over who's arguing with whom and there's some poor witness who got dragged in to testify and is watching this little sideshow with the three stooges looking at it going why am i here why am i here talk about a waste of time so the two are argued and engaged in an extended improper dialogue and one of the attorneys said if i were the court reporter i would sue the other attorney for defamation and file a bar complaint against him apparently in that vein the court reporter also said at some point that she may or might sue the attorney for slander and file a bar complaint against him the back and forth between the two attorneys then continued it is undisputed that at some point one attorney cursed at the other either saying f u or f off again the full word and now here's the odd part the court reporter did not transcribe this so now all bets are off court reporters should transcribe it it's a verbal statement set out loud at a hearing and the fact that the court reporter didn't transcribe that is actually a little bit of a problem now if there's another recording of this like a video recording or an audio recording they can double check that but the court reporter who's creating a transcript at the moment uh should have transcribed that should have so after both attorneys wasted time arguing the one attorney suspended the deposition the parties then sought court intervention court scheduled a hearing for later that day any interim the parties returned to the deposition with a different court reporter took him three tries to figure that one out as such the plaintiff's motion for a protective order was denied as moot additionally the court ordered the parties wanted to seek sanctions against another party or council a written motion for sanctions that need to be filed this current motion followed now there's rules that say that the court can indeed sanction a party the problem here is that both attorneys did things for which they can be sanctioned the one attorney's profane language was clearly unprofessional and is unacceptable indeed continuation of such conduct could be grounds for a referral to florida bar or for further professional training however the impeding delaying and frustrating of the deposition came from both council's behavior which patently displayed more interest in getting the last word and baiting each other then actually resolving their dispute in other words neither attorney here is blameless this is when you realize you shouldn't have filed the motion you shouldn't have called the parents over neither is the court reporter court reporter's not blameless even if she did not transcribe the objections at the initial deposition in the other case because she genuinely could not hear him and even if she felt unfairly impugned by the attorney she made inappropriate comments at two of the depositions at one deposition after the attorney disconnected the court reporter stated that that attorney is psychologically unstable and there's something wrong with him at the other deposition she threatened to sue him and file a bar complaint against him notably court reporters are supposed to be and this is a quote guardians of the record because of their impartiality and role was a judicial process so they're supposed to be impartial they can't be impartial they shouldn't be there meaning that if she's got a problem to the point where she can't do her job she needs to actually step back a look get another court reporter that's what she should do and so she should have done that so making the statements and the insults is a problem ultimately though the attorney was not wrong to use the court reporter for the first deposition but he should have made sure to retain a different court reporter for the ones that followed and regardless of whether or not the attorney or the court reporter is in the right regarding the objections in the hearing it was apparent after that first deposition that the continued use of that court reporter ran the risk of both further inflaming the one attorney and injecting at least the specter of partiality into the proceedings the problem had an easy fix which was to use a different court reporter so they finally got one apparently but the judge goes on to say nevertheless the attorney who complained about the court porter had also acted unreasonably and shares in the blame here he was entitled to the state as objection the ground is therefore but he went on and so the judge points out that both sides both attorneys have wasted the court's time the opponent's time that'd be the witness and their clients money they both escalated the disputes here rather than pursuing the easy common sense means of resolving them at the court as the court said the outset reasonable and professional attorneys resolve these types of disputes under the circumstances both should not be allowed to profit from their actions and their clients should not have to pay therefore the court will require the first attorney to write off any time incurred in connection with the present dispute sanctions are warranted because his conduct violated the rules the second attorney which is the one who objected the court reporter should not be awarded sanctions here in light of his conduct and so they are both getting in trouble and the court similarly expects that objecting attorney to exercise billing judgment and write off his time related to present dispute which was unnecessarily and unreasonably incurred however as the motion is won by one party seeking sanctions against the other and there was no counter motion the court won't award that relief right now but he hints that if the other side raises it he would as of right now one attorney got sanctioned uh the other attorney didn't yet but he probably will but the judge basically said look you guys uh you're behaving like children said you guys have known each other for many many years you've had 20 cases together you've even been co-counseling cases together you should be able to get along and the fact you can't is bizarre so i've seen attorneys snap before but not on this level i've also had friends of mine send me transcripts go look what happened at a deposition i was at where some attorneys stamped and you always look at that and go i i you know and it's it's difficult it is difficult um i've been in situations before where i wanted to snap and you can't you can't and you have to you know uh the same reason as a poker player you'd have to jump up and down look what i got you can't do that just yet you know so sometimes you have to bottle in your emotion uh restrain yourself and behave politely behave politely and that's really what this boils down to you can talk about the rules the rules you've got all these definitions of what's unprofessional and don't do this don't do that it boils down to behave politely so getting back to the very beginning there's a deposition so there's a witness to attorneys and a court reporter so those are the four necessary people who are involved in this and an attorney asks a question and the other attorney objects and he asks the court reporter did you get my objection and by the way i've that's there's nothing wrong with that because at these hearings it's not uncommon that parties are looking at different people they're looking around or taking notes and a court reporter does catch everything for the most part but once in a great while they'll miss something and so if the attorney knew that he had spoken softly was facing the wrong direction or for whatever reason wanted to make sure his objection was noted there's nothing wrong with saying did you catch my objection and if the court reporter said no i did not i couldn't hear you the answer is not to say what's your problem are you ignoring me the answer is to say oh we need to fix that because the court reporter needs to hear you and if you legitimately think the court reporter is messing with you or ignoring you or not writing down what you're saying get a new court reporter and you have every right in the world say you know something the court reporter we had at the last deposition i didn't care for let's get another one and there's no problem with that so the fact that instead they chose to keep fighting and bickering yeah it's both of their faults it's both their faults so it's a crazy case and uh i'm glad it got sent to me by keith uh it's actually been picked up by a lot of news services and the problem here is that uh they started to engage in tit for tat squabbles and accusations that wasted the courts time their own time and their clients money shenanigans that reasonable and professional attorneys do not engage in so it's a great story of the united states district court southern district of florida questions your comments put them below i'll just talk to there bye-bye thank you for watching latos law why is your nose in the middle of your face because it's your center

Channel: Steve Lehto

Views: 18,254

Rating: 4.9801655 out of 5

Keywords: lemon law, michigan lemon law, lemon law attorney, lemon law lawyer, http://www.lehtoslaw.com, steve lehto

Id: WozuZHjHvg4

Length: 25min 26sec (1526 seconds)

Published: Wed Jun 16 2021