Standing Order, Having not done so, he should have adapted his conduct to the requirements of the
Standing Order.

Second, Mr. Seiden raised his voice and literally shouted at the Court as the Court was trying
to explain to him and to the plaintiffs why the defendant believed that its second, higher offer was
reasonable, and why the defendant might have a different view of the merits of the case. A party and
its counsel have an absolute right to disagree with the Court and the other party on the merits of the
case. A frank discussion of the merits is expected and customary in a settlement conference.
However, it is never appropriate for a lawyer to raise his voice to a Judge in the midst of a court
proceeding, let alone to shout. Mr. Seiden’s behavior was all the more egregious in light of the fact
that the Court was providing hours of judicial time as well as the Court’s facilities in the effort to
obtain a settlement that would resolve the plaintiffs’ claim. Again, his behavior demeaned the Court
in the presence of the plaintiffs as well as interfered with the Court’s ability to assist the parties to
reach a settlement.

Third, after the defendant made its third offer, this Court conveyed that offer to the plaintiffs
and their counsel, and then left them so that they could discuss the offer. As admitted in Mr.
Seiden’s Response (at 10), the Court told Mr. Seiden that it would not put up with any more of his
shouting. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Seiden and his clients walked out of the settlement conference
without making a decision on the offer, without even advising the Court or the Court's staff that they
were leaving. As reported to the Court by the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Seiden advised defendant’s
counsel that the plaintiffs would “sleep on it.” He did not seek the Court’s leave to depart from the
settlement conference, notwithstanding the requirement of the Standing Order that parties remain

until 5:00 p.m. unless the Court terminates the conference earlier.



872 (7" Cir. 1999) (“[T]his judge had ample reason to become impatient with Levine’s lawyer [Mr.
Seiden] and to interrupt his examination of witnesses”); Best Coin-Op, Inc. v. Fountains on Carriage
Way Condominium Assn., 608 N.E.2d 28 (Ill. App. 1993)(appeal dismissed because plaintiff's
submissions on appeal failed to meet the minimum technical requirements of the Illinois Supreme
Court mules); U.S. ex rel Erickson v. Schomig, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Ill. 2001), (Manning,
J.)(defendant sentenced to death penalty granted writ of habeas corpus on ground that his counsel
(Mr. Seiden) failed to verify background of proposed expert witness); U.S. ex rel Erickson v.
Schomig, No. 99 C 6468, 2001 WL 1607654, *5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2001) (Manning, J.)(defendant’s
lead counsel (Mr. Seiden) failed to appear in court for argument at sentencing in death penalty case,
leaving associate lawyer to make the argument).

That track record suggests that the modest monetary fine that might be imposed in the present
circumstances is hardly likely to be effective. It is much more important that Mr. Seiden consider
the obligations of counsel to the court, opposing counsel, and his clients, and evaluate his conduct
in light of those obligations. Thus, Mr. Seiden is hereby ordered to read the Standards for
Professional Conduct Within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit within seven days of this Order.”
Heis also warned that any future conduct reflecting disrespect for the Court or disregard of counsel’s

obligations will be further punished and may be referred for disciplinary proceedings.

“GERALDINE Soat BROWN

United States Magistrate Judge

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 4, 2002

? That document is available on the website for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals or from
the Clerk of the Court.


Joseph Doyle, lives and works in St. Louis.

Also, at that initial status, counsel advised the Court that the plaintiffs’ native language is
Croatian, that two of the plaintiffs speak little or no English, and one speaks limited English. In
order that the plaintiffs could participate meaningfully in the settlement conference, a Croatian
language interpreter was required to be present at the settlement conference. Although the
government is not required to provide an interpreter for this civil matter, the defendant Postal Service
obtained and paid an Croatian interpreter to be present at the settlement conference.

Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order, the defendant was required to serve a settlement
letter. That letter generated the first offer ever made to the plaintiffs to settle this case.

At the settlement conference held on September 26, 2002, the plaintiffs’ counsel Mr. Seiden
committed the following acts that impeded the settlement process and demeaned the dignity of the
Court.

First, from the earliest opportunity, Mr. Seiden criticized the Court’s method of conducting
the settlement conference, complaining that he does not like the mediation style of conducting
settlement conferences. Following the Court’s meeting with the parties, Mr. Seiden continued this
criticism in the presence of court staff as he walked down the corridors. It is not appropriate for
counsel to criticize the Court’s method of conducting a settlement conference while the Court is in
the process of conducting the conference. In addition to the inherent disrespect and outright
rudeness, criticizing the Court in the presence of the plaintiffs has an obvious negative effect on the
Court’s ability to facilitate a settlement. The fact that the settlement conference would be conducted
in a mediation style was expressly set out in the Standing Order. If Mr. Seiden was so adverse to a

mediation style settlement conference, he should have availed himself of the remedy set out in the



In addition to violating the Standing Order, Mr. Seiden’s conduct in departing the settlement
conference without notice displayed a total absence of respect or even fundamental courtesy.
Furthermore, Mr. Seiden had no authority to assume unilaterally that he could extend the defendant’s
offer beyond the duration of the settlement conference, particularly in light of the Court-ordered
attendance of Postal Service counsel Joseph Doyle at the settlement conference. Counsel Doyle was
entitled to the reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs would make a decision here at the settlement
conference about the defendant’s offer.

This Court set aside one-half day of Court time, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the
settlement conference in an effort to resolve the plaintiffs’ four- year-old claim. Because of this
Court’s procedures, including the mediation format set out in the Court’s Standing Order, plaintiffs
received their first offer ever in this case, and were provided not only with the opportunity to have
3 % hours of the Court’s tirne, but with an interpreter to make that time meaningful for them. Instead
of appreciating this opportunity and complying with the Standing Order and the obligations of
counsel to the Court, Mr. Seiden, demeaned the Court’s efforts and walked out without obtaining
leave of the Court or making an decision on the final offer.

Mr. Seiden’s Response does not deny any of the behavior described above. He does not deny
that he shouted at the Court. He admits that he criticized the mediation style of settlement
conference. (Response 3.) He admits that he and his clients walked out of the conference without
accepting or rejecting the offer or even advising the Court that they were leaving. (Jd. { 10.)

Contrary to the argument in the Response, what prompts the consideration of sanctions is
not the fact that the plaintiffs disagreed with the defendant’s arguments as presented by the Court

during the caucuses with the plaintiffs. After all, this Court has absolutely no stake whatsoever in


t

4
Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

et ed Jud Sitting Judge if Oth i
Na or Maslveate i 4 Ronald A. Guzman a ies io ie Geraldine Soat Brown
CASE NUMBER 01 C 5893 DATE 12/4/2002
CASE Zdravkovic vs. U.S.A.
TITLE

[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g. plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and
of the motion being presented.)

(b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) oa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) im) Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) a) Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(e) a Trialfset for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) Cl Local Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) (© FRCP41(a)(2).
ao [Other docket entry} For the reasons set out in the Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding
Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’ Attorney, plaintiffs’ counsel Glenn Seiden is ordered to read the Standards
for Professional Conduct Within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit within 7 days of this Order. Mr.
Seiden is also warned that any future conduct reflecting disrespect for the Court or disregard for counsel’s
obligations will be further punished and may be referred for disciplinary Posen thi
aij a [For further detail see order (on reverse side of/attached to) the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. Document
No notices required. umber of notices Number
wv | Notices mailed by judge's staff, DEC 05 2002
Notified counsel by telephone. -
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. sn
09 La1yLsid
J | Copy to judge/magistrate judge. Lun ywya

feputy's 00:2 Wa 1-93020 date ind nsce
a nan a i
“us O Dadar dish :
central Clerk's Office nailing deputy initials



who is right and who is wrong in the underlying dispute. When a case is referred only for settlement
conference (as this one was), the Magistrate Judge’s calendar is not affected one way or the other
whether the case settles or not. The purpose of meeting with a Judge in a settlement conference is
so that the Court may work to bring each side to an understanding of, not necessarily agreement with,
the position of the other side. That understanding, along with comments and questions from the
Court, may prompt both sides to reevaluate their own positions and make sufficient movement to
achieve a settlement. If one party’s counsel, instead of listening with respect and, if necessary,
disagreeing with respect, instead tries to shout down the Judge, as Mr. Seiden did here, the Court’s
whole effort is a waste of time.

Mr. Seiden’s behavior violated this Court’s Standing Order for Settlement Conference as
well as Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which require parties and their counsel to
participate in settlement conferences in good faith. Sanctions, including fines, may be imposed for
violation of a court’s orders relating to settlement conferences. Nick v. Morgan's Foods, Inc., 270
F.3d 590, 594-95 (8" Cir. 2001).

In determining the appropriate sanction in this case, it is of great concern that Mr. Seiden’s
conduct in this instance is apparently not an aberration. Opinions by various courts describe conduct
by Mr. Seiden demonstrating disrespect for the court and disregard of his obligations to his clients,
in some instances with very serious consequences for the client. See, e.g., Giannopoulos v. Brach
& Brock Confections, Inc., 109 F.3d 406 (7" Cir. 1997)(plaintiff’s counsel, including Mr. Seiden,
failed to file a responsive statement required by local rules in opposition to defendant’s statement
in connection with motion for summary judgment; defendant’s statement was deemed admitted,

defendant awarded its costs because plaintiff’s appeal was frivolous); U.S. v. Levine, 180 F.3d 869,


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION DOCKETED

DEC 0.5 2002
MIRA ZDRAVKOVIC, et al., )
Plaintiffs, ) Cause No. 01-C-5893
)
v. ) Judge Ronald A. Guzman
) Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Defendant. )
)
)

MEMO. iD’ PINION AND ORD!
REGARDING SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY

Geraldine Soat Brown, United States Magistrate Judge

This case was referred to this Court by District Judge Guzman on July 9, 2002 for a
settlement conference. [Dkt #9.] The underlying action is a claim against the United States under
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) for personal injuries allegedly incurred by the three plaintiffs as a result of
acollision with a U.S. Postal Service truck in 1998. A settlement conference was held by this Court
on September 26, 2002, following which the plaintiffs’ attorney, Glenn Seiden, was ordered to show
cause why he should not be sanctioned for his conduct at the settlement conference. [Dkt #14.] In
response, Mr. Seiden filed Plaintiffs’ Response to Courts [sic] Sua Sponte Motion. [Dkt #16.] For
the reasons set out herein, Mr. Seiden is ordered to read the Standards for Professional Conduct
Within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit. Mr. Seiden is also warned that any future conduct
reflecting disrespect for the Court or disregard of counsel’s obligations will be further punished and

may be referred for disciplinary proceedings.



Itis important to note at the outset that this issue has nothing to do with whether a settlement
is reached in this case or not.' Each party has the absolute right to decide whether to settle a claim
or to proceed to judgment. However, no party or lawyer has the right to disregard the Court’s orders,
to demean the dignity of the Court, or to waste the Court’s or another party’s time and money. The
Court has the right and responsibility to enforce its orders, the Federal and Local Rules and to
exercise the inherent authority of the Court to prevent, remedy and punish any such abuse.

In this case, the following conduct occurred in the presence of this Court.

Prior to the initial status hearing on July 22, 2002, to set the date for the settlement
conference, counsel for both parties were sent a copy of this Court’s Standing Order for Settlement
Conference, which provides in part:

The Court generally will follow a mediation format: that is, each side will make an

opening presentation to the other side, which will be followed by joint discussion

with the Court and private meetings by the Court with each side. The Court expects

both the lawyers and the party representatives to be fully prepared to participate in

the discussions. (Standing Order { 4.)

All participants in the settlement conference must stay until 5:00 p.m. (CST), unless the
Court terminates the conference earlier. (Id. ] 2.)

Any party who wishes to vary any of the procedures set forth in this standing order
should make an appropriate request to the Court prior to the exchange of settlement
letters described above. (Jd. at 3.)

The Standing Order also lists nine issues to be discussed at the settlement conference. (Id. J 6.)

At the initial status, pursuant to that Standing Order, Postal Service counsel with authority

to settle was ordered to be present personally at the settlement conference, although that counsel,

' Apparently, a settlement may have been reached because the District Judge dismissed the
case without prejudice on November 15, 2002, with leave to reinstate by January 15, 2003. [Dkt #
17.]