Source: https://www.lsba.org/Professionalism/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:45:15+00:00

Document:
Professionalism concerns the knowledge and skill of the law faithfully employed in the service of client and public good, and entails what is more broadly expected of attorneys. It includes courses on the duties of attorneys to the judicial system, courts, public, clients, and other attorneys; attorney competency; and pro-bono obligations.
While civility is a significant aspect of Professionalism, there are also numerous other inherent qualities that make up a Professional lawyer like Diligence, Honesty, Courage, Competence and Service to the Public as well as the Profession.
I will never reject from any consideration personal to myself the cause of the defenseless or oppressed or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice.
We will act and speak civilly to court marshals, clerks, court reporters, secretaries, and law clerks with an awareness that they too, are an integral part of the judicial system. Adopted Aug. 5, 1997.
Legal ethics set forth the standards of conduct required of an Attorney; professionalism includes what is more broadly expected. Section 1.Rule 3(c) of the “Rules of Continuing Legal Education” as amended by the Louisiana Supreme Court on May 23, 1997.
Generally, ethics rules tell us what we cannot do and professionalism deals with what we should do.
An attorney at law is an officer of the court. He shall conduct himself at all times with dignity and decorum, and in a manner consistent with the dignity and authority of the court and the role which he himself should play in the administration of justice.
He shall treat the court, its officers, jurors, witnesses, opposing party, and opposing counsel with due respect; shall not interrupt opposing counsel, or otherwise interfere with or impede the orderly dispatch of judicial business by the court; shall not knowingly encourage or produce false evidence; and shall not knowingly make any misrepresentation, or otherwise impose upon or deceive the court.
For a violation of any of the provisions of this article, the attorney at law subjects himself to punishment for contempt of court, and such further disciplinary action as is otherwise provided by law.
La. C.C.P. 863 Signing of pleadings, effect.
C. If, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, the court determines that a certification has been made in violation of the provisions of this Article, the court shall impose upon the person who made the certification or the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
“Article 863 requires the signing, certifying attorney or litigant to make an objectively reasonable inquiry prior to signing the pleading. Diesel Driving Academy, Inc. v. Ferrier, 563 So.2d 898 (La.App. 2d Cir.1990); Loyola v. A Touch of Class, Transp. Service, Inc., 580 So.2d 506 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991); Romero v. Chris Crusta Flying Service, Inc., 587 So.2d 803 (La.App. 3d Cir.1991). Subjective good faith does not satisfy article 863’s duty of reasonable inquiry. Fairchild v. Fairchild, 580 So.2d 513 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1991); Loyola v. A Touch of Class Transp. Service, Inc., supra; Diesel Driving Academy, Inc. v. Ferrier, supra. The rule applies to the signing of pleadings, motions and other papers and imposes upon attorneys and litigants affirmative duties as of the date the document is signed. Fairchild v. Fairchild, supra; Loyola v. A Touch of Class Transp. Service, Inc., supra; Murphy v. Boeing Petroleum Services, Inc. 600 So.2d 823 (La.App. 3d Cir.1992). The affirmative duties are personal and non-delegable. Diesel Driving Academy, Inc., v. Ferrier, supra. The signing attorney must satisfy himself, by application of his own judgment, that the pleading is factually and legally responsible. Id. Article 863 is intended for exceptional circumstances; it is not violated simply because a party’s argument or ground for relief is subsequently found unjustified. Fairchild v. Fairchild, supra; Murphy v. Boeing Petroleum Services, Inc., supra."
“From a review of the record it can be clearly shown that had the plaintiffs, or their counsel made the slightest inquiry they would have determined without the least bit of difficulty that there existed no legal nor factual basis for the lawsuit…"
In Borne, the plaintiffs alleged in their petition that the attorneys for the defendant made false and malicious statements and provided incomplete and inaccurate information, resulting in the denial of certificates of need to construct and operate nursing home facilities. The court awarded sanctions to the attorneys, in the amount of $82,047.84.
“Article 863 is derived from Rule 11 of the Federal Rules. Because there is limited jurisprudence interpreting and applying Article 863, (FN3) the Federal decisions applying Rule 11 provide guidance to this court. See, Diesel Driving Academy, Inc. v. Ferrier, 563 So.2d 898 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1990).
4) The complexity of the legal and factual issues raised.
Diesel Driving, supra, citing Thomas, supra.
"Article 863 is intended only for exceptional circumstances and is not to be sued simply because parties disagree as to the correct resolution of a legal matter. See, Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corporation, 835 F.2d 479 (3rd Cir.1987), citing Morristown Daily Record, Inc. v. Graphic Communications Union Local 8N, 832 F.2d 31 (3rd. Cir.1987). Furthermore, nothing in the language of Rule 11 or Article 863 empowers the district court to impose sanctions on lawyers simply because a particular argument or ground for relief is subsequently found to be unjustified. Gaiardo, supra, citing Golden Eagle Distributing Corporation v. Burroughs Corporation, 801 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir.1986). Failure to prevail does not trigger a sanction award. Gaiardo, supra."
In Fairchild, an attorney propounded interrogatories although there were no pending proceedings. Opposing counsel objected to the interrogatories as being procedurally improper since there were no pending proceedings at the time. The attorney propounding the interrogatories then filed a motion to compel answers to the interrogatories, at which point the opposing attorney sought sanctions. Although there was no legal basis for the interrogatories to be propounded, the court denied sanctions because of the facts of this particular case. Fairchild involved a custody dispute. The most recent court order granted custody to a particular party with the understanding that the party would continue to seek psychiatric therapy. There were only eight interrogatories, asking only information concerning residents and the party’s continued psychiatric therapy. The court noted that “the slightest justification for the exercise of the legal right precludes sanctions. Only when the evidence is clear that there is no justification for the legal right exercised should sanctions be considered. Any lessor standard would serve to seriously impair the rights of a party as a litigant.” The court found that the interrogatories were in fact not propounded for harassment purposes.
694 So.2d 358 (La.App. 5th Cir.1996).
In Armond, the court ruled that there is "no excuse for failure to present evidence in court of one’s petition at the trial.” Although this was an election challenge where there was not adequate time to engage in thorough discovery or extensive fact finding, the court took note of the fact that the plaintiffs produced no expert testimony and made numerous irrelevant allegations in the petition. Sanctions of $2,500.00 were awarded and affirmed.
See Sternberg v. Sternberg, 695 So.2d 1068 (La.App. 5th Cir.1997); Loyola v. A Touch of Class Transportation Service Inc., 580 So.2d 506 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991); Hester v. Hester, 680 So.2d 1232 (La.App. 4th Cir.1996), writ denied.
An attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action for a willful violation of Article 863, or for the insertion of scandalous or indecent matter in a pleading.
The court on motion of a party or on its own motion may at any time and after a hearing order stricken from any pleading any insufficient demand or defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
"We believe that a lawyer’s conduct should be characterized at all times by the personal courtesy and professional integrity enunciated in the rules above. The truth seeking adversarial process is designed to resolve human and societal problems in a civilized, rational and efficient manner. Conduct that may be characterized as uncivil, abrasive, abusive, hostile, dishonest or obstructive interferes with the fundamental goal of resolving disputes in a civilized, rational and efficient manner. Such conduct wastes limited judicial resources, increases transactional costs, delays justice and causes loss of public confidence in the judicial system. WE cannot tolerate lawyers’ conduct, toward the court and toward other lawyers, which violates these standards."
"Under the Uniform Rules of the Appellate Courts of this State, attorneys are required to submit a brief which is “free from insulting, abusive, discourteous, or irrelevant matter or criticism of any person, class of persons or association of persons, or any court, or judge or other officer thereof.” A violation of this rule shall subject the author of the brief to punishment for contempt of court. Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal 2-12.4."
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An undersigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
3. the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity based on a lack of information or belief.
4. the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorney, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
Professionalism: A Cost/Benefit Analysis for the Defense Lawyer and His or Her Client?
The "Rambo" Problem: Is Mandatory Professionalism CLE The Way Back To Atticus?
Professionalism: What Rules Do We Play By?"
Who Wants To Be a Professional?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.