Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-00820/USCOURTS-ca10-07-00820-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Justin K. Roberts
Not Party

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: JUSTIN K. ROBERTS, No. 07-820

ORDER

Filed September 14, 2007

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

The court issued an order allowing Justin K. Roberts to show cause why he should

not be disciplined for his lack of diligence and inattention to court orders in Case No.

06-4288, United States v. Garcia. Mr. Roberts has responded to the order. Principally,

his response is that he should not be held accountable because sporadic difficulties with

mail service to his office resulted in him not receiving a show cause order filed July 16,

2007 in connection with the Garcia appeal.

Based on the evidence he has submitted, we have no reason to disbelieve Mr.

Roberts when he says he did not receive the order issued July 16, 2007. Whether that

excuses his failure to respond to it is a separate question. Regardless of whether Mr.

Roberts actually received the order in the mail, litigants have an affirmative duty to

monitor court dockets. Brown v. Zarek, No. 98-5097, 162 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. Oct. 22,

1998) (unpublished), citing Key Bar Inv., Inc. v. Cahn (In re Cahn), 188 B.R. 627, 632

(B.A.P. 9th Cir.1995); Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney), 29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th

Appellate Case: 07-820 Document: 010132661 Date Filed: 09/14/2007 Page: 1 
2

Cir.1994). Had Mr. Roberts been monitoring the court's docket, he would have been

aware of the order. Mr. Roberts had special cause to be checking the court's docket, since

he was already aware that there had been mail delivery problems at his office. He had, in

fact, mentioned those problems to the court in response to the first show cause order

issued in the Garcia appeal. See Memorandum filed March 28, 2007.

But the real problem is not the failure to respond to the order, but the conduct that

resulted in the order being issued. Mr. Roberts was initially directed by order and by rule

(Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1)) to file a transcript order form by December 1, 2006. However,

he did not file a transcript order form with the district court in compliance with Fed. R.

App. P. 10(b)(1)(A)(iii) until May 17, 2007 (see Doc. 72, 05-CR-280 (Utah Dist. Ct.)). 

Even then, the filing came only after an additional order from this court and the issuance

of the first of two show cause orders filed in the Garcia appeal. Similarly, Mr. Roberts did

not file an entry of appearance and docketing statement with this court until March 28,

2007, despite being directed to file them by December 1, 2006, and the additional

directive and show cause order. Although those delays and failures to comply with court

directives were the subject of an earlier show cause order that was discharged, the

conduct is still relevant to our overall consideration of whether, and to what extent,

discipline may now be warranted.

But the problems in moving this appeal forward did not end with the four month

delay in filing preliminary documents. Under our rules, "At the time of ordering, a party

must make satisfactory arrangements with the reporter for paying the cost of the

Appellate Case: 07-820 Document: 010132661 Date Filed: 09/14/2007 Page: 2 
3

transcript." Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(4). Mr. Roberts does not deny that as of July 16, 2007,

he still had not paid for either of the transcripts he requested in the Garcia appeal. Mr.

Roberts asserts he had difficulty getting in touch with one of the two court reporters

involved in transcript preparation. Assuming that to be true, the delay involved in paying

for the transcripts was nevertheless unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that

counsel was aware of the court's concern about the excessive delay already associated

with the appeal.

Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 requires attorneys to act with reasonable

diligence and promptness in representing a client. Mr. Roberts violated this fundamental

rule of attorney ethics. Eight months after filing a notice of appeal, issues relating to

record preparation had still not been settled by Mr. Roberts. His repeated failure to

timely comply with court rules and orders and lack of diligence unnecessarily and

unreasonably added a burden on the judicial system and delayed his client's appeal. For

these reasons, Justin K. Roberts is publicly reprimanded.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-820 Document: 010132661 Date Filed: 09/14/2007 Page: 3