Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00135/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00135-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

YOLANDA M. BOSWELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:07-CV-135-WKW[WO]

)

JAMARLO K. GUMBAYTAY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:

Disqualification of Alfred T. Newell IV

Before the court is Plaintiff Yolanda M. Boswell’s (“Boswell”) Motion for Attorney

Disqualification and Other Sanctions (Doc. # 87) to which Alfred T. Newell IV (“Newell”)

filed a response (Doc. # 91). On March 24, 2009, after proper notice, a hearing was held on

the motion in conjunction with other pending matters. (March 24, 2009 Evidentiary H’rg

1

Tr. (Doc. # 142) [hereinafter “H’rg Tr.”].) At the hearing, the court orally granted the

motion, disqualified Mr. Newell from further representation in the case, and forewarned that

additional sanctions would be forthcoming. (H’rg Tr. 96-97, 104; see also Doc. # 137 ¶ 1.)

In an order entered on March 30, 2009 (Doc. # 137), the court directed the Clerk of the Court

to reflect Mr. Newell as “terminated” in the court’s record as to this case, and further

 The hearing was evidentiary in nature, and ample notice was given. On February 4, 2009, an 1

Order was entered setting the evidentiary hearing on February 24, 2009, addressed to, among other

matters, Ms. Boswell’s Motion for Attorney Disqualification and Other Sanctions. (Doc. # 127; see also

Doc. # 145 (Order granting motion to continue and continuing evidentiary hearing to March 24, 2009).) 

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 1 of 20
indicated that a written Order memorializing the reasons for disqualifying Mr. Newell and

imposing additional sanctions would be forthcoming. (Doc. # 137 ¶ 3.) This is that Order.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Courts possess the inherent power to protect the orderly administration of justice and

to preserve the dignity of the tribunal.” Kleiner v. First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d

1193, 1209 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-65

(1980)). This power “‘necessarily includes the authority to impose reasonable and

appropriate sanctions upon errant lawyers practicing before it.’” Id. (quoting Flaksa v. Little

River Marine Constr. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 888 (5th Cir. 1968)). “Such sanctions include . . .

disqualification of counsel[.]” Id. “A trial judge possesses the inherent power to discipline

counsel for misconduct, short of behavior giving rise to disbarment or criminal censure,

without resort to the powers of civil or criminal contempt.” Id.

“The standards governing disqualification of an attorney already admitted to appear

before the district court differ, depending on the circumstances.” Schlumberger Techs. v.

Wiley, 113 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1997). Schlumberger Technologies espoused two

standards. First, “[i]f the conduct at issue threatens disruption of the court proceedings, or

is a deliberate challenge to the authority of the district court, . . . great deference [is given]

to the trial court’s decision to disqualify the responsible attorney.” Id. (citing as examples

United States v. Dinitz, 538 F.2d 1214, 1220-21 (5th Cir. 1976), and Kleiner, 751 F.2d

at 1207). A later Eleventh Circuit case described this standard as applying to “conduct

2

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 2 of 20
disruptive of the proceedings or constituting a threat to the orderly administration of laws,”

or, more succinctly, said the standard applied to “the ‘orderly administration of justice’ line

of cases.” In re BellSouth Corp., 334 F.3d 941, 959 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

Second, “[i]f . . . the conduct at issue does not threaten the orderly administration of justice

but is allegedly unethical, . . . district courts [must] rest their disqualification decision on the

violation of specific Rules of Professional Conduct, not on some ‘transcendental code of

conduct . . . that . . . exist[s] only in the subjective opinion of the court.’” Schlumberger

Techs., 113 F.3d at 1561.

In addition, the Eleventh Circuit in Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., 293 F.3d 1306

(11th Cir. 2002), held that “before a court can impose sanctions against a lawyer under its

inherent power, it must find that the lawyer’s conduct ‘constituted or was tantamount to bad

faith.’” Id. at 1320 (quoting Durrett v. Jenkins Brickyard, Inc., 678 F.2d 911, 918 (11th Cir.

1982)); but see Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005)

(recognizing, but not resolving, the lack of clarity in Eleventh Circuit cases as to whether

those cases require “subjective bad faith, which may be inferred from reckless conduct, or

[whether] they merely require reckless conduct, which is considered “tantamount to bad

faith” (brackets added)). “A finding of bad faith is warranted where an attorney knowingly

or recklessly raises a frivolous argument, or argues[even] a meritorious claim for the purpose

of harassing an opponent.” Thomas, 293 F.3d at 1320. As the Eleventh Circuit has held,

“[A]n attorney who submits documents to the district court that contain ad hominem attacks

3

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 3 of 20
directed at opposing counsel is subject to sanction under the court’s inherent power to

oversee attorneys practicing before it.” Id. at 1308; see also id. at 1326 n.29. Submissions

to the court “are not meant to be an avenue through which attorneys, clients, and witnesses

can simply emote, let off steam, or otherwise sling mud at an adversary.” Id. at 1325. Bad

faith also is demonstrated by conduct that “hampers enforcement of a court order.” Id. In

such an instance, “disqualification [is] justified by the ‘strong . . . interest in securing

obedience to mandates of the court which is necessary to secure the orderly administration

of the laws.” Schlumberger Techs., 113 F.3d at 1560 n.7 (quoting Kleiner, 751 F.2d

at 1210).

II. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2007. (Doc. # 1.) Mr. Newell made his debut

in the litigation on June 3, 2008, when he filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Mr.

GumBayTay. (Doc. # 56.) The litigation, which up to this point was already riddled with

egregious misconduct by Mr. GumBayTay, took a further dramatic turn for the worse when

Mr. Newell joined forces with Mr. GumBayTay. The drama began immediately.

2

Contemporaneously with filing his notice of appearance, Mr. Newell filed a motion

to continue Mr. GumBayTay’s deposition. That deposition had been scheduled to begin at

9:00 a.m. on June 3, 2008 (Doc. # 58-2), but Mr. Newell’s motion to continue was not filed

until late that afternoon (Doc. # 57). In an Order entered on June 5, 2008, the Magistrate

 As will be seen from the balance of this opinion and the findings of two other orders entered

2

contemporaneously, the marriage was not made in heaven, but considerably south of that sweet clime.

4

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 4 of 20
Judge lamented that, given the belated filing of Mr. Newell’s motion to continue the

deposition, a “timely ruling on the merits of the motion” was not possible. (Doc. # 59, at 1.)

He continued, “While the Court understands that counsel was newly retained, Defendant

Gumbaytay has been aware for several weeks of his upcoming deposition. Such dilatory

tactics cannot be tolerated especially since the dispositive motion deadline is quickly

approaching.” (Doc. # 59, at 1 (internal citation omitted).) In the same Order, the Magistrate

Judge set a hearing on June 18, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., for the purpose of determining Ms.

Boswell’sreasonable expensesincurred in connection with the late-filed motion to continue.

3

(Doc. # 59, at 2.)

Mr. Newell also perpetuated Mr. GumBayTay’s prior destruction of documents and

hindered the efficient resolution of the issues surrounding that destruction. On June 6, 2008,

Ms. Boswell filed a Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and/or Motion for

Sanctions for the Destruction of Documents and a brief, requesting the imposition of

sanctions against Mr. GumBayTay for his destruction of discovery documents. (Docs. # 61

& 62.) The same day, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order (Doc. # 63) directing Mr.

GumBayTay to show cause why Ms. Boswell’s motion requesting sanctions and requesting

that Mr. GumBayTay be compelled to produce the requested discovery documents (Doc.

# 62) should not be granted. Mr. Newell did not respond to the motion on behalf of his

client; hence, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion to compel, imposed a June 23, 2008

 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules of this district, this case was referred to

3

United States Magistrate Judge Terry F. Moorer for appropriate disposition of pretrial discovery motions.

5

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 5 of 20
deadline for production of the requested discovery, and directed that the motion for sanctions

would be addressed at the scheduled hearing on June 18, 2008 (Doc. # 67).

In the interim between the Magistrate Judge’s Order and the June 18, 2008 hearing,

Mr. GumBayTay was deposed. His counsel was present, but not with a demeanor becoming

of an attorney. The disruptive conduct by Mr. Newell was frequent; it was unprofessional.

He repeatedly interrupted the direct examination of Ms. Boswell’s counsel (Allison Neal),

and he improperly interjected comments in attempts to testify on behalf of his client and nonpresent third parties. (See, e.g., GumBayTay Dep. 166, 220, 224, 229, 246-47, 250 (Ex. B

to Doc. # 92).) At one point, Mr. Newell interrupted Ms. Neal’s questioning in such a

disruptive manner that his own client, Mr. GumBayTay, said, “Don’t get me thrown out of

here,” to which Mr. Newell responded, “I don’t care. I’ll get thrown out.” (GumBayTay

Dep. 251); (see also H’rg Tr. 97.) Mr. GumBayTay then pleaded, “Listen to me.

Seriously[.]” (GumBayTay Dep. 251.)

Not only did Mr. Newell disrupt the discovery process, he flouted the orders of the

court. He disregarded the Magistrate Judge’s Order setting the time for the June 18, 2008

hearing at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Newell arrived an hour and fifteen minutes late to that hearing.

He tried to blame traffic problems on his untimely arrival. However, based upon the

information garnered at the hearing, in particular a phone call received by the court from Mr.

Newell’s assistant indicating that Mr. Newell left Birmingham at 9:00 a.m. for his ninety6

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 6 of 20
mile trip to Montgomery, the Magistrate Judge “d[id] not find credible Mr. Newell’s

assertions that traffic was the only reason for the delay.” (Doc. # 94, at 5 n.5.)

At the same hearing, the evidence revealed that Mr. GumBayTay and his counsel had

not reviewed Ms. Boswell’s request for production of documents to determine whether any

of the existing undestroyed documents were responsive to that request. The Magistrate

Judge, thus, ordered Mr. Newell and Mr. GumBayTay to have a conference by June 23, 2008,

to determine whether there were any outstanding documents subject to those requests. (Doc.

# 98, at 4.) In violation of the Magistrate Judge’s order, Mr. GumBayTay and Mr. Newell

did not have that meeting prior to the June 23, 2008 deadline. (Doc. # 94, at 10.)

Also, on June 18, 2008, the Magistrate Judge entered two written Orders (Docs.

# 72-73.) One required Mr. GumBayTay to reimburse Ms. Boswell $200 for the cost of the

court reporter’s appearance and fees incurred by Ms. Boswell’s counsel when Mr.

GumBayTay failed to attend his scheduled June 3, 2008 deposition. (Doc. # 72.) The second

required Mr. Newell to pay $300 to counsel for Ms. Boswell as a sanction for his “extreme

tardiness” to the June 18, 2008 hearing. (Doc. # 73.)

Mr. Newell paid the court-ordered fine, totaling $500, with payment received by Ms.

Boswell’s counsel on July 7, 2008. Unbelievably, however, on July 8, 2008, Mr. Newell

attempted to extort that money with a false threat, by leaving the following voice mail for

Ms. Neal, who is Ms. Boswell’s counsel:

Hello, Miss Neal. This is Al Newell. I’m leaving you a message. My first

message is, it is about noon on Monday the 8 , I think. You do not have very

th

7

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 7 of 20
long to give me my money back that I just paid to you. If you do not, I

promise you will never get out of jail. Second thing: you better tell me what

you are going to do to fix Mr. GumBayTay’s life that you ruined. Same thing:

if you don’t, you will never get out of jail. This is not a joke. I don’t bluff,

and I don’t kid, and I don’t really care. Have a good day.

(Neal Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

And, on July 5, 2008, three days prior to narrating the abusive voice mail, Mr. Newell

made baseless accusations against Ms. Neal’s client and threatened Ms. Neal with

prosecution in an email to her :

4

YOUR CLIENT BOSEWELL [SIC] HAS 3 OUTSTANDING WARRANTS

FOR ASSAULT AND DRUGS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT IF

YOUR CLIENT IS NOT PROSCEUTED [SIC] AND OR TURNED IN

IMMEADIATLY [SIC] YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH AIDING AND

ABETTING, COMPOUNDING, AND OBSTRUCTION. YOURS TRULY,

AL NEWELL

(Attach. A to Neal Decl. ¶ 3 (Doc. # 87).) On July 7, 2008, in a letter to Ms. Neal (Doc.

# 87-4), Mr. Newell reiterated these accusations and threats. (Attach. B to Neal Decl. ¶ 5

(Doc. # 87).) The letter indicates that the undersigned and Judge Moorer were copied on the

letter.

Mr. Newell’s reprehensible conduct not only occurred out of court, but also infiltrated

his filings with the court. On July 10, 2008, Mr. Newell filed a proposed Amendment to

Counterclaim. (Doc. # 79-2.) The proposed pleading asserts, without evidentiary support,

that Ms. Boswell’s claims against Mr. GumBayTay arose because Ms. Neal conspired with

At no time has Mr. Newell offered any evidentiary support for his accusations against either Ms.

4

Boswell or Ms. Neal. 

8

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 8 of 20
Ms. Boswell in order to “blackmail[]” Mr. GumBayTay. (Doc. # 79-2.) Moreover, Mr.

Newell’s categorization of Ms. Boswell in that proposed pleading is demeaning and

derogatory, not to mention baseless, and is repeated five times. Specifically, Mr. Newell

refers to Ms. Boswell as a “crack whore,” “this crack whore who is trying to blackmail . . .

Mr. Gumbaytay,” one of those “[c]rack whores,” an “unreliable crack whore[],” a “crack

whore,” and a “crack whore Section 8 tenant.” (Doc. # 79-2.) He further alleges that Ms.

Neal and Ms. Boswell fabricated evidence in this case, including faking Mr. GumBayTay’s

voice on tape, so that Ms. Boswell could obtain free housing and Ms. Neal could promote

her “likely . . . political aspirations.” (Doc. # 79-2.)

In a concurrently-filed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 79-3), Mr. Newell

repeats, again without evidentiary support,several of those allegations. He calls Ms. Boswell

a “crack whore,” says that Ms. Neal and Ms. Boswell conspired to “professionally frame[]”

Mr. GumBayTay, and proclaims that “the named Defendants” (by which, context suggests,

Mr. Newell meant to refer to Ms. Boswell and her counsel) are responsible for “the $500 Mr.

Newell has already paid.” (Doc. # 79-3.)

Then, on September 11, 2008, Mr. Newell filed a pleading, styled “Request for Leave

of Court.” (Doc. # 111.) In that pleading, which is wholly unsupported by evidence, Mr.

Newellsays, first, that “Allison Neal and her staff are capriciously and blatantly and illegally

filing such briefs, writs, motions and illegal, absurd pleadings for a crack whore plaintiff,

who’s same, said legal filings are time-barred” (Doc. # 111, at 1 (emphasis in original).)

9

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 9 of 20
Second, he says, “In fact, [attorneys for Ms. Boswell] were aggressively trying to put this

innocent man in jail right after his deposition, for a number of Housing Act violations and

untrue claims and charges brought to them by a disreputable plaintiff who had outstanding

warrants for her arrest.” (Doc. # 111, at 2 (brackets added).) Third, he proclaims that

“ACLU plaintiff[] manufactured evidence where their client, established by professional

investigator as a disreputable crack whore, leads Gumbaytay on. . . .” (Doc. # 111, at 2.)

The unprofessional, inappropriate and unsupported accusations were repeated on

February 10, 2009, in the Objection to Summary Judgment (Doc. # 130). Mr. Newell, not

content to confine his vituperative allegations to parties in the case, stated that Ms. Boswell

“lives with a drug addicted parent for which [sic] she provides, housing and drugs by selling

drugs and possibly herself on the streets.” (Doc. # 130, at 3.)

Mr. Newell also ignored the procedural rules for submitting pleadings to the court.

On three different dates in August 2008, Mr. Newell sent six emails to the undersigned’s

work email address and attached to those emails a compilation of largely incomprehensible

documents. (Doc. # 99.) No explanation was provided by Mr. Newell as to the purpose for

submitting these emails or why he sent these emails to the undersigned’s work email address,

which is published neither on the court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system nor on the Middle

District of Alabama’s website. In an Order entered on August 27, 2008, the court found that

Mr. Newell’s acts of sending these emails to the undersigned’s work email address were

inappropriate and in violation of the rules of this court for filing pleadings. (Doc. # 99, at 2.)

10

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 10 of 20
Consequently, Mr. Newell was directed to cease sending emails to the undersigned’s work

email address for any purpose and to file all pleadings electronically in compliance with the

court’s Administrative Procedures for Filing, Signing, and Verifying Pleadings and

Documents in the District Court under the Case Management/Electronic Case Files

(CM/ECF) System.

Also, in August 2008, Mr. GumBayTay hand-delivered a motion for filing in this case,

and, in the presence of an employee of the Clerk of the Court, he signed Mr. Newell’s name

on the motion. (Doc. # 96; see also Doc. # 106, at 1 n.1.) Mr. Newell claims he gave Mr.

GumBayTay “permission” to sign his name (H’rg Tr. 94); assuming arguendo the

statement’s truth, such permission does not abrogate Mr. Newell’s obligations under Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (requiring an attorney

5

to sign every pleading, written motion or other paper submitted on behalf of his client). The

improper signature was never corrected. See id.

The culmination of Mr. Newell’s conduct resulted in an evidentiary hearing held on

March 24, 2009, see supra note 1. (H’rg Tr. 86-104.) At the hearing, Mr. Newell did not

offer any evidence to support his accusations lodged against Mr. Boswell and her counsel,

did not present a satisfactory explanation for his misconduct, and admitted that he had

“threaten[ed]” Ms. Neal. (H’rg Tr. 92.) As to his mudslinging references to Ms. Boswell

 While Ms. Boswell does not bring her motion for disqualification of Mr. Newell pursuant to 5

Rule 11 (Doc. # 87, at 5 n.2), Mr. Newell’s alleged act of allowing his client to forge his (Mr. Newell’s)

signature on a motion to be filed in federal court typifies Mr. Newell’s generally unprofessional conduct

in these proceedings.

11

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 11 of 20
as a “crack whore,” Mr. Newell said that he may have been a “little overzealous” and that

perhaps his pleadings could have been “done more tactfully.” (H’rg Tr. 87 & 88; see also

H’rg Tr. 96.) He also, however, said he thought the allegations “were true.” (H’rg Tr. 87.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Disqualification and Other Sanctions

Mr. Newell’s conduct in this case has made a mockery of the judicial system. It has

obstructed the orderly administration of justice, and has violated numerous Alabama Rules

of Professional Conduct.

Applying the principles of Schlumberger Technologies, Mr. Newell’s filings in this

court have disrupted the orderly administration of justice. See 133 F.3d at 1561. Throughout

the course of this litigation, Mr. Newell has filed abusive and harassing documents replete

with demeaning and derogatory name-calling and vituperous accusations impugning the

character of Ms. Boswell and her counsel. Without any evidentiary basis whatsoever, he has

accused Ms. Boswell and Ms. Neal of conspiring to fabricate evidence and to perpetrate a

fraud on the court, and in the coarsest of language, has repeatedly called Ms. Boswell a drug

user and a prostitute, that is, “a crack whore.” (Docs. # 79-2, 79-3, 111.) His references to

Ms. Boswell as a “crack whore” were not simply, as he says, a “little overzealous” and

lacking “tact.” (H’rg Tr. 87 & 88; see also H’rg Tr. 96.) Those references were, and the

court so finds, intentionally calculated and made in bad faith for the purpose of harassing,

embarrassing and disparaging Ms. Boswell. Through his offensive, baseless and harassing

12

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 12 of 20
submissions, Mr. Newell has disrupted these proceedings and failed to fulfill his duties as

an officer of the court.

Mr. Newell further has threatened the orderly administration of justice by his

inexcusable tardiness. He was an hour and fifteen minutes late to the June 18, 2008 hearing

before the Magistrate Judge, and his reason for being late was wholly unbelievable and his

tardiness was completely avoidable. (Doc. # 94, at 5 n.5.) His lack of respect for courtimposed time lines was repeated at the March 24, 2009 evidentiary hearing. Notwithstanding

that Mr. Newell’s misconduct was directly at issue at that hearing, Mr. Newell and his client

were late to court after a recess. (H’rg Tr. 81, 84.) Additionally, Mr. Newell engaged in an

obstructive maneuver when he moved for the continuance of Mr. GumBayTay’s deposition,

hours after the time scheduled for that deposition. The Magistrate Judge accurately

characterized Mr. Newell’s motion to continue as an unacceptable “dilatory tactic[.]” (Doc.

# 59, at 2; see also Doc. # 94, at 4 n.3.) Moreover, in direct and flagrant violation of the

Magistrate Judge’s directive, Mr. Newell did not meet with his client prior to the courtimposed June 23, 2008 deadline to discuss certain discovery matters. (Doc. # 94, at 10.)

The reprehensibleness of Mr. Newell’s court filings and conduct in the courtroom

unfortunately is matched, if not exceeded, by his behavior toward opposing counsel outside

of the courthouse doors. He has attempted to extort money from Ms. Boswell by his

threatening voice mail to Ms. Boswell’s counsel, demanding repayment of the $500 courtordered sanction and falsely exclaiming that this sanction constituted blackmail. The court

13

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 13 of 20
finds that Mr. Newell acted willfully and in bad faith and that he attempted to contravene the

court’s order requiring payment of $500 to Ms. Boswell’s counsel. Mr. Newell’s conduct

is indefensible. Combined with the hollow accusations lodged in Mr. Newell’s July 5, 2008

email to Ms. Boswell’s counsel and reiterated in his July 7, 2008 letter to her, these baseless

threats were calculated to compromise the orderly administration of justice. The court further

finds that these contacts were initiated by Mr. Newell in bad faith for the purpose of

intimidating and harassing Ms. Boswell and her counsel.

Mr. Newell’s constant disruptions during Mr. GumBayTay’s deposition are but

another example of his obstreperous conduct. In the words of the Magistrate Judge, Mr.

Newell’s conduct in this case has been “appalling” and “atrocious” (Doc. # 94, at 1 n.1.)

6

Moreover, even if Mr. Newell’s actions did not threaten the orderly administration of

justice, which they did, disqualification would be appropriate in these circumstances, given

that his actions violated at least five Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. See Thomas,

293 F.3d at 1323 n.25 (“The United States Supreme Court has stated that a federal court can

 In the Recommendation entered by the Magistrate Judge on August 7, 2008 (Doc. # 94), which 6

the court adopted (Doc. # 103), the Magistrate Judge noted:

This Report and Recommendation does not address any of the other outstanding motions

[which would include the Motion for Attorney Disqualification and Other Sanctions

(Doc. # 87)] However, the undersigned does note the behavior by defense counsel

Alfred Newell IV has been appalling. Specifically, the undersigned notes the ongoing

violations of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, the inappropriate pleadings,

and the written and verbal abuse to his opposing counsel. The undersigned has never

seen such atrocious behavior from counsel during his tenure on the bench nor in his prior

legal practice.

(Doc. # 94, at 1 n.1 (brackets added).)

14

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 14 of 20
charge attorneys with knowledge of, and hold them accountable to, state ethics rules in the

state where the court sits.”) Rule 3.10 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct

provides that “[a] lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present

criminal charges solely to obtain advantage in a civil matter.” Ala. Rules of Prof’l Conduct

R. 3.10. The Comment to the Rule clarifies that “[t]hreatening to use, or using, the criminal

process to coerce adjustment of private civil claims or controversies is a subversion of that

process[.]” Id. cmt. By his threats to bring criminal charges against Ms. Neal if she did not

prosecute or “turn in” Ms. Boswell, and his threats that Ms. Neal would “never get out of

jail” if she did not return the $500 court-ordered payment and “fix Mr. GumBayTay’s life,”

Mr. Newell clearly violated Rule 3.10.

Mr. Newell also violated Rule 3.10 by attempting to coerce enforcement of the alleged

“3 outstanding warrants for assault and drugs” against Ms. Boswell. As the comment to Rule

3.10 further states, “[T]he person against whom the criminal process is so misused may be

deterred from asserting his or her legal right and when that happens the usefulness of the civil

process in settling private disputes is impaired.” Ala. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.10. The

court finds that, by threatening Ms. Boswell’s arrest and prosecution, Mr. Newell

intentionally sought to deter Ms. Boswell from asserting her fair housing rights and to gain

advantage in this civil proceeding. This conduct violates Rule 3.10.

Rule 3.1 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct also has been transgressed by

Mr. Newell. It reads, “In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not . . . assert a

15

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 15 of 20
position, conduct a defense . . . or take other action . . . when it is obvious that such action

would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.” Ala. Rules of Prof’l Conduct

R. 3.1. Mr. Newell’s threats, fabrications, and coarse accusations were without a legal or

factual basis. It is the finding of the court that the accusations were lodged for the purpose

of harassing and maliciously injuring Ms. Boswell and her counsel.

The violations do not end there. Rule 3.3 of the Alabama Rules of Professional

Conduct states, “A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a false statement of material fact or

law to a tribunal[.]” Ala. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.3. In his submissions and letter to the

court, Mr. Newell, at the very least, has made factual and legal assertions with reckless

disregard as to their truth or falsity. He has made the gravest of allegations against Ms.

Boswell and Ms. Neal, some barely relevant and others wholly outside the bounds of civility

and decorum, and has not supported these allegations with any form of evidence.

Rule 3.5 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct states, “A lawyer shall not . . .

engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.” Ala. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.5. The

comment to this Rule clarifies, “Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a

corollary of the advocate’s right to speak on behalf of litigants.” Ala. Rules of Prof’l

Conduct R. 3.5 cmt. Through Mr. Newell’s filings with and letter to this court, and as

described above, the court finds that Mr. Newell has engaged in abusive and obstreperous

conduct intended to disrupt the tribunal, and in the process has trampled Rule 3.5.

16

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 16 of 20
Finally, Rule 8.4 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct states, “It is

professional misconduct to . . . violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional

Conduct,” to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation[,]”

to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[,]” or to “[e]ngage

in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.” Ala. Rules of

Prof’l Conduct R. 8.4. Mr. Newell’s purposeful, prejudicial obstruction of the administration

of justice has been detailed in this opinion. To summarize, Mr. Newell has violated Rule 8.4

through his pattern of harassment, his dishonest, disruptive, and abusive attacks, and his

attempts to undermine and ignore court orders.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Newell is subject to sanctions. He already has

been disqualified from representation of Mr. GumBayTay in this case. (H’rg Tr. 104.) The

court also has considered carefully other available, reasonable and appropriate sanctions, as

forewarned (H’rg Tr. 104). Based upon that consideration, Mr. Newell’s misconduct will

be referred to the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar. See Martin v.

Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332, 1336 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002)

(upholding sanctions imposed pursuant to the district court’s inherent power that included,

among other sanctions, reporting the actions of the disobedient attorney to “Federal Bar and

. . . the Grievance Committee of the Florida Bar”). Mr. Newell’s misconduct also will be

17

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 17 of 20
reported to the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Alabama.

7

The sanctions are severe. Given the past failure of monetary sanctions to persuade

Mr. Newell to behave as befits an officer of this court, and the gravity of Mr. Newell’s

8

abusive and harassing actions, the court finds that disqualification and the other sanctions are

necessary, reasonable and appropriate. In such an instance as this, the public interest in

securing obedience to the mandates of the court and in the orderly administration of justice

outweigh Mr. GumBayTay’s interest in representation by counsel of his choice. See Kleiner,

751 F.2d at 1210.

B. Attorney’s Fees

The court also finds that an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate. Having carefully

reviewed the legal tasks performed, the rates charged and the time expended in light of the

guidelines set out in Norman v. Housing Authority, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988),

9

the court concludes that the hourly rates and expended hours are reasonable and that counsel

 At the next district judges’ meeting of the Middle District of Alabama scheduled in June 2009, 7

if Mr. Newell has not already voluntarily withdrawn from the Bar of this court, the undersigned will

place on the agenda the issue of Mr. Newell’s removal from the roster of attorneys eligible to practice

before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, see M.D. Ala. LR 83.1(f), (g).

 The court previously imposed a monetary sanction against Mr. Newell; this sanction apparently 8

was the immediate trigger for escalation of his harassing behavior and accusations, and Mr. Newell

sought to avoid the legal effect of that court-imposed monetary sanction by improperly seeking to coerce

Ms. Boswell into returning the amount paid. 

In Norman, the former Fifth Circuit relied, in part, upon the oft-cited standard articulated in

9

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds,

Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989). See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1298-99.

18

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 18 of 20
for Ms. Boswell necessarily incurred those fees for time spent pursuing the Motion For

Attorney Disqualification and Other Sanctions. These reasonable fees were necessarily

incurred by Ms. Neal ($375.00), Emily J. Martin ($4,481.25), and John Pollock ($284.00),

for a total amount of $5,140.25.

IV. CONCLUSION

The court has determined, after careful review of the evidence, the totality of the

circumstances, and the entire court file, that Mr. Newell’s egregious misconduct during this

litigation has disrupted the orderly administration of justice, that Mr. Newell has violated

multiple Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, and that he has acted in bad faith. In this

opinion, the court has expounded upon the reasons why, at the March 24, 2009 evidentiary

hearing, it orally granted Ms. Boswell’s Motion for Attorney Disqualification and Other

Sanctions (Doc. # 87) and disqualified Mr. Newell from further representation in the case.

Moreover, in this opinion, additional sanctions have been considered and imposed against

Mr. Newell, and Mr. Newell’s removal from the roster of attorneys eligible to practice before

the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, see M.D. Ala. LR

83.1(f), (g), remains to be considered by the full court, see supra note 7.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, in addition to Mr. Newell’s disqualification as

counsel in this case, the following sanctions also are ASSESSED against Mr. Newell:

(1) Mr. Newell’s conduct in this action shall be REFERRED to the Disciplinary

Commission of the Alabama State Bar.

19

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 19 of 20
(2) Mr. Newell’s conduct in this action shall be REPORTED to the Chief Judge

of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

It is further ORDERED that Ms. Boswell shall HAVE and RECOVER from Mr.

Newell $5,140.25 in attorney’s fees, for which let execution issue.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Mr. Newell.

DONE this 1st day of June 2009.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20

Case 2:07-cv-00135-WKW-TFM Document 152 Filed 06/01/09 Page 20 of 20