In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. D-12-0002

IN THE MATTER OF:

BRIDGET BOYLE-SAXTON,

Respondent.

Disciplinary Matter

DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 2012

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and CUDAHY and

MANION, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The court issued an order directing attorney Bridget Boyle-Saxton to show cause why she

should not be subject to discipline, up to and including

disbarment, for the abandonment of her client in a

criminal case (United States v. Rodriguez, No. 11-1590).

She did not respond to this order.

Before the court issued that order to show cause, it

had issued four others because counsel failed to comply

with her obligations to her client and the court. Three

of these orders (including the latest) were ignored. Two

prompted incomplete responses.
2 No. D-12-0002

This criminal appeal was docketed on March 14, 2011.

Under Fed. R. App. P. 31(a)(1), an opening brief is due

40 days after the record is filed. Counsel did not take

the steps required to ensure that the transcript was prepared and the record filed. Indeed, she did not do

anything in the appeal, omitting even the very first step:

paying the filing and docketing fees. (She is retained

counsel; her client has not sought leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.)

On June 21, 2011, we directed counsel to show cause

by June 28 why the appeal should not be dismissed

because of her inaction. She did not reply to this order.

On June 30 we issued another, directing a response by

July 6. Meanwhile, on June 29, we issued an order

directing Boyle-Saxton and another attorney, representing another defendant, to file opening briefs no

later than August 1.

July 6 passed without a response from BoyleSaxton. On July 25 she finally addressed the court’s

two outstanding orders. She said that she had done

nothing because she believed that her client did not

want to appeal, and that she planned to dismiss the

appeal. She did not pay the filing fees in order to

protect her client’s rights should this understanding be

mistaken. Nor did she seek additional time to file an

opening brief.

On August 2 we suspended the two extant orders to

show cause and directed counsel to file, no later than

August 31, either the papers necessary to dismiss the

appeal if Rodriguez truly did not want to proceed, see

Circuit Rule 31, or an opening brief.
 No. D-12-0002 3

August 31 passed without action. Counsel did not move

to dismiss the appeal. She did not pay the required

fees. She did not file a brief. She did not seek additional

time to file a brief. The lawyer for Rodriguez’s co-defendant sought and was granted several extensions of time

because the court reporter had been slow in preparing

the transcript (which he had ordered). But Boyle-Saxton

did nothing.

On October 31, 2011, we issued the third order to

show cause, this time directing counsel to explain by

November 8 why she had not responded to the order

of August 2, had not paid the appellate fees, and had not

filed a brief (or even a motion for an extension of time).

On November 3 she asked for more time to file a brief,

representing that an additional five to seven days

would suffice. Chief Judge Easterbrook entered an order

extending the time to November 10. This order added:

“Attorney Boyle-Saxton is reminded to respond to the

court’s order dated October 31, 2011, by November 8,

2011.”

November 8 came and went without a response to

the outstanding order to show cause. November 10

came and went without a brief for Rodriguez. (The codefendant’s brief had been filed on November 4.) On

November 22 the court entered a fourth order to show

cause, this time directing Boyle-Saxton to show cause

why disciplinary action should not be taken on account of her continuing failure to comply with this

court’s orders.

Boyle-Saxton’s latest filing, dated November 29 (and

filed on November 30), did not meet her obligations. It
4 No. D-12-0002

did not explain why she let so many deadlines pass

without action. It did not address the disciplinary issues

the court raised. Instead counsel asked for a further

five days to file a brief, representing that she “will have

the brief filed by December 2, 2011.” She stated that

she had surgery in early November, that she mistakenly

thought she had earlier asked for (and been granted) four

weeks instead of one (though there is absolutely no

ambiguity in her motion of November 3, or the order the

Chief Judge entered the next day), and that she has

been busy representing her clients at trials in state

court. She stated that one trial lasted from November 14

through 17, and that another was held on November 21.

It is apparent from this final motion for additional

time that Boyle-Saxton elected to put work for other

clients ahead of her obligations to Rodriguez and this

court. That is unprofessional; lawyers have an ethical

obligation to take no more work than they can perform. Moreover, counsel has never even offered an explanation for ignoring orders this court has entered,

directing her to respond by specified dates. Nor has

she explained why she had not completed the brief

long ago, before the surgery and the two trials in

which she participated in November 2011.

Concluding that this conduct is intolerable, the

Chief Judge directed Boyle-Saxton to show cause by

December 21, 2011, why she should not be fined, censured, suspended, or disbarred (or any combination of

these sanctions) for defying this court’s orders and apparently abandoning her client. See Fed. R. App. P. 46(b), (c).
 No. D-12-0002 5

The Chief Judge also extended the time to file a brief,

observing: “Notwithstanding my reservations about

Boyle’s conduct (really, her non-conduct) to date,

I grant the motion for an extension of time, until

December 2, to file the opening brief. This is a criminal

appeal, and an order dismissing the appeal for lack of

prosecution—the only practical alternative to giving

Boyle additional time (since Rodriguez is not proceeding

in forma pauperis, I cannot dismiss Boyle and appoint

another lawyer for him)—would simply lead to a

collateral attack demanding relief based on ineffective

assistance of counsel. The court would have no alternative but to grant that relief. But I am unwilling to

allow Boyle’s unprofessional conduct to delay the codefendant’s appeal. If Boyle files a brief by December 2,

the appeals will remain consolidated. But if a brief is not

filed by the close of business on December 2, Rodriguez’s

appeal will be dismissed, for want of prosecution,

without further opportunity to show cause, and the codefendant’s appeal will proceed. Boyle must understand

that, if the court finds it necessary to dismiss Rodriguez’s

appeal and then to reopen his judgment because of ineffective assistance, that will be a further reason for professional discipline.”

Boyle-Saxton did not file a brief by December 2; indeed,

this court has not heard from her at all since the Chief

Judge’s order. Rodriguez’s appeal has been dismissed

for want of prosecution. The obvious ineffective assistance of counsel will force Rodriguez to obtain an order

from the district court vacating and reinstating his conviction, so that he can have the benefit of an appeal.
6 No. D-12-0002

Because Boyle-Saxton has not responded to the Chief

Judge’s order, and thus has not asked for an evidentiary

hearing, the disciplinary matter is ready for decision.

She is unfit to practice law in this court. Abandonment

of a client in a criminal case is reprehensible. Ignoring

orders entered by a court is inexcusable. We have disbarred lawyers in similar circumstances. See, e.g., In re

Riggs, 240 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2001). That is the appropriate

step here too. Boyle-Saxton is disbarred. She is further

ordered to refund to Rodriguez all fees she may have

been paid for handling this appeal, and to provide the

court within 21 days evidence that this has been done.

Failure to do so will be treated as contempt of court.

The court will send copies of this opinion to the Office

of Lawyer Regulation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,

and to the clerks of each district court within the circuit.

Boyle-Saxton must send a copy to any other jurisdiction

in which she may be licensed to practice law.

2-2-12