## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. D-1 2- 0002 I N THE M A T T E ROF : B RI DGET B OYLE -S A X T ON, Res pond e nt

.

Di scip linary M atter

D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 2, 2012

B efore E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd C UD AH Y an d M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . P ER C URIAM
. The cour t i ssued an o rderdi re cti ng at

to r ne y Br i dge t Bo y l e- S ax to n to sh o w c au se wh y s he sh o ul d no t be s ubj ect t o di sc i pl i ne , up to a nd i nc l udi ng di sb ar m en t, f o r the aba ndo nm en t o fhe r c l ient i n a c rim inal cas e ( U nited Sta tes v. R o drig uez , No. 1 1- 15 90 ). She did not resp ond to this order. B efo re th e c ou rtiss u ed th at ord er to sh ow ca u se , i t h ad iss u ed fou r ot h er s b ec au se co u n se l failed to co m p ly w i th herobl i gat i ons to her cl i ent a nd the cour t. Three o fth e s e o r d e r s ( i n c l udi ng t h e l a t e s t ) we r e i g n o r e d

. T wo prom pted i ncom ple te re sponses .2 N o. D-1 2- 0002 This cri m i nal appealwa s dock ete d on M ar ch 14, 20 11. UnderF ed. R. App. P. 3 1( a) ( 1) , a n o pen i ngb r i efis due 40 days a fter th e recor d i s fi l ed. Counseldi d not t ake the s teps r equi re d to ensure tha t the t ra nscri pt w as prep a r e d a n d th e r e c o r d fi l e d

. I n d e e d , s h e d i d no t do a n y t hi ng i n the a pp e a l, o mi t t i nge v e n the v e r y fi r s ts t e p: payi ng the fi l i ng and dock eti ng f ees . ( She i s re ta ined c o un s e l ; h e r cl i e nth a s n o ts o ughtl e a v e t o p r o c e e d in form a paup er is .) On June 2 1, 20 11, w e di re cted co unsel to sho w cause by J une 28 w h y the appealsho uld notbe dism i sse d bec au se of her i na ction. She d id n ot r e p ly to this ord er. On June 3 0 we i ssued ano ther, di re cting a r esponse by J uly 6 . M eanw hi l e, o n J une 29, we i ssued an o rder di r e c t i ngBo y l e - S a xt o n a nd a no the ra t t o r ne y, r e pr es en tinga no th erd efe nda nt, t o fi l e o pen i ngb r i ef s no l ate r than A ugust 1

. J uly6 passed witho u t a res ponse fro m Boyl eSax ton

. On J uly 25 sh e fi na ll y ad d ressed the cou rt’s two o ut st an di ngo r der s. S he s ai d that s he ha d do ne nothing b ecause she bel i eve d that he r cl i ent di d not wantt o a ppea l, a nd tha t sh e pl an ned t o di smi ss the appeal

. S he d i d not pay the fi l i ng fees i n or der t o prot ect her cl i ent’ s r i ghts sh ou l d thi s underst anding be m i sta ken. N ordi d she se ek add i ti onalti m e t o fi l e a n op en ing brief. On A ugust 2 we su sp en d ed the tw o extant or ders to show cause a nd di re cted co unsel to fi l e, no l ate r than Augus t 31 , e i th erthe pa per s ne ce ss ar y t o di smi ss the appeal i fRodri guez tr ulydi d not w an t to proce ed, se e C ircuit Ru le 31, or an ope nin g brief

.N o. D-1 2- 0002 3 A ugust 3 1 pass ed w i thout acti on. Counseldi d not m ove to dis m i ss the a pp eal

. S he di d not pay the r equi re d f ees . S he di d not fi l e a br ief. She did notse ek add i ti onal ti m e to fi l e a br i ef

. The l awy erf or Ro dr i g ue z’ s co - defen da nts o u g h ta n d w a s g r a n t e d s e v e r a l e x t e n s i o n s o ft i me be ca us e th e co ur t r epo r te r ha d been s l o w i n pr epa r i ng the t ra nscri pt ( w hi ch he had o rdered). But Boyl e- Saxto n did nothi ng. On O cto ber31 , 20 11, we i ssued the thi rd o rd er to show cause, this tim e di re cti ng co unsel to expl ai n by N ove m b er 8 wh y s he had not re sponded to the or der ofA ugust 2 , had not pai d the a p pel l ate fees , and had not fi led a brief (or even a m o t io n f or an ex ten sion of ti m e). O n N ovem ber 3 sh e asked f or m ore tim e to fil e a brief, re prese nti ng tha t a n additi onalfi ve t o seve n days w oul d suffi ce. Chie fJ ud ge Easterbro ok enter ed an o rder e xt e nd i ngthe t i me t o No v e mbe r 1 0

. T hi s o r de r a dde d: “Att o r ne y Bo y l e- S ax to n i s r eminde d t o r es po nd t o the court’ s o rderdated Octob er31 , 20 11, by N ove m ber8, 20 11 .” N ove m ber8 cam e a nd went w i thout a r esponse to the o utsta nd i ng o rder to sho w cause . N ove m ber10 c a me a nd we nt wi tho ut a b r i e f f o r Ro dr i g ue z . ( The code f e nd a nt ’ s b r i e fh a d b e e n fi l e d o n No v e mbe r 4

. ) On N ove m ber22 the cour t e nter ed a f ourth or der t o show cause, this ti m e di re cti ng Boyl e- Saxto n to sho w cause w hy di sci pli naryact i on s houl d no t be t ake n on a cc ou n t o f h er co n tin u in g fa ilu re to co m p l y w ith th is cour t’ s o rder s. Bo y l e- S ax to n’ s lates t fi l i ng, da te d Nov embe r 2 9 ( an d filed on N ov em b er 30 ), d id n ot m ee t h e r o b liga tio n s. It4 N o. D-1 2- 0002 did notexpl ai n w hy she l et so m an y deadl i nes pass w i thout ac tio n. I t di d not a dd re ss the di sci pli naryi ssues the c ourtr ai sed . In st ead co unsel as ked f ora further fi ve days t o fi l e a br i ef, r epres enti ng t h at she “ w i l l have the b ri effi l ed by Decem ber2, 20 11. ” S he st ate d that sh e h ad su rg er y in ea r l y N ov em b er , th at sh e m ist ak en ly th o ug hts he ha d e ar l i er as k ed f o r ( an d b ee n g r an te d) f o ur wee k s i ns tead o fo ne ( th o ug h the r e i s ab so l ut el y no ambi g ui tyi n h er m o ti o n o fNov embe r 3 , o r the o r derthe Ch i efJ ud ge en te red the next day) , and that she has been busy r epres enti ng hercl i ents at tr ials i n sta te cour t

. S he s t a t e d tha t o ne t r i a l l a s t e d f r o m No v e mbe r 14 thro ugh 17, and that anothe r w as hel d on N ove m ber21

. I t i s a pp ar ent fro m thi s fi nal m otion for a dd i ti onal ti m e th at Boyl e- Saxto n el ecte d to pu t workf oro ther c lien ts ah ea d o fh er ob liga tio n s t o R od rig u ez an d th is cour t. That i s unprofess i onal ; l aw yer s hav e a n ethi cal obligati on to take no m o r e w ork than they can perf o r m . M o r eo ver, co uns elha s ne ve r e ve n o ffered a n e xpl a na t i o n f o r i g no r i ngo r de r s thi s court ha s e nt e r e d, direc ti ng herto r espond by speci fi ed dates. N orhas she ex p lai ned w hy she had not com ple ted the br i ef lon g a go , bef or e t h e s u r g er y a n d th e t w o t ria ls in w hi ch she parti ci pated i n N ove m ber20 11. Con cl udi ngtha t th i s co nd uc t i s i nt o l er ab l e, the Ch i efJu d ge dir ecte d Boyl e- Saxto n to sho w cause by Dec embe r 21 , 20 11 , why sh e sh o ul d no t be fi ne d, censured , s u spended , o r disb ar re d (o r any c om bi nati on o f th ese san ctions ) for d efying t his cou rt’s orders an d ap p aren tly aban d onin g h er c li en t. See Fed

. R

. A p p . P

. 4 6(b), ( c).N o. D-1 2- 0002 5 T he Ch iefJ ud ge also exten d ed t h e t im e to fil e a brief, o bs er ving : “ N o twi th st an di ngmy r es er va ti o ns abo ut Boyl e’ s co nd uct ( re al l y, hernon- cond u c t) t o date, I gra n t t h e m ot i o n for a n ex te n sio n of tim e, u n til Decem ber 2, to fi l e the openi ng bri ef

. This i s a cr im inal appeal, and an o rderd ism issing the appealf orl ack of pros ecuti on

— th e only pr ac ti ca l a l te r na ti ve t o g i ving Bo y l e addi ti o na l t i m e ( sinc e Ro dr i g ue z i s not pro ce eding in f orm a paup er is , Ic an no t di smi ss Bo y l e an d a ppoi nt a n o th e r l a wy e r f o r h i m)

— w oul d sim plyl ead to a col l ate ra l at tackdem anding re l i efbas ed on i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unse l. The courtwould have no a l ter nati ve but to gra n t th at re l i ef

. But Iam unw i l l i ng to al l ow B oyl e’ s unprofess i onalco nd uct t o del ay the c odefe nd ant’ s a pp eal

. I fBoyle file s a br i efby Decem ber2, the a pp eal s wil l r em ai n conso l i dated. But i fa bri efi s no t fi le d b y the close ofbu siness on D ecem ber 2, R od riguez’s appe alwi l l b e di smi ss ed, forwanto fpr o se cut i o n, w i thout furthero pp or tuni ty to show cause, and the codefen dan t’ s appe alwi l l pr o ce ed. Bo y l e m us t underst an d th at, i f th e cou rt fin d s it ne cess ary to dism iss Rod riguez’s ap p eal and then to reopen his j ud gm en t beca us e of ineff ecti ve ass i sta nce, thatwil l be a furtherr eas on f orpro f essio n al d isc ip lin e.” Bo y l e - S a xt o n di d n o tfi l e a b r i e fb y De c e mbe r 2 ; i nd e e d, thi s co u rthas not hear d fr om heratal l si nce the Chie f J ud g e ’ s o r de r . R o dr i g ue z ’ s a pp e a l h a s b e e n di s mi sse d f orwant ofpro secuti on. The o bvi ous ineffec tive as si stance o fc ou n selwil l f or ce Ro dri guez to obt ai n an o rder f r o m the di st r i ct cour t va ca tinga nd r eins ta tinghi s co nvic tio n, so th at h e c an h av e t h e b en efit of an ap p ea l.6 N o. D-1 2- 0002 Because Boy l e- Saxto n has not r esponded to the Chi ef Jud ge’s orde r, and thu s has not aske d f or an evid en t iary he ar i ng, the di sc i pl i na r y matt eri s r ea dy f o r de ci si o n. S he i s unfi t to pr ac ti ce l aw in thi s co ur t. Aba ndo nm en t o fa c l i en t i n a c r i m i na l c as e i s r epr eh en sibl e. I gno r i ng or ders enter ed by a cour t i s i nexcusabl e. W e hav e di sbar re d l aw yer s in si m i l arci rcum sta nces. S ee, e. g. , In re Riggs , 24 0 F

. 3d 668 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)

. That i s the appropr i ate st ep h ere t oo . Boyl e- Saxto n i s di sbar re d. She i s further or dered to r efund to Rodri guez al l fees she m ay have be enpa i d f o r ha ndli ng th is a ppea l, a nd t o pr o vi de th e cour t withi n 21 days e vi dence thatthi s h as been done. Fai l ure to do so wil l be tr eat ed as conte m pt ofco urt. The cour t wil l se nd co pie s ofthi s o pini on t o the Offi ce ofLaw yerRegul ati on o fthe W i sco nsi n Suprem e Cour t, and to the c l er ks of ea c h dis tr i ct c ourtwithi n the ci rcui t. Boy l e - S a xt o n mus ts e nd a c o py t o a nyo the r j ur i s di c ti on i n wh i c h s h e ma y b e l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e l a w.

2- 2- 12