Opinion ID: 744488
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: suspensions of attorneys cepeda, romero, and torres

Text: 29 Appellate jurisdiction over the appeals of Cepeda, Romero, and Torres arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals of final decisions of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. [A] decision is ordinarily considered final and appealable under § 1291 only if it 'ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.'  Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, ----, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 1718, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945)). In this case, the decision to suspend Cepeda, Romero, and Torres is not final in the usual sense. The claims for CERCLA contribution still exist; therefore, the litigation on the merits has not ended and the court has more to do than simply execute the judgment. 6 30 Under the collateral order doctrine, however, an otherwise non-final decision can be appealed if it finally and conclusively determines the disputed question, resolves an important issue separate from the underlying merits, and is effectively unreviewable after final judgment. See Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225-26. It is unquestionable that the order from which Cepeda, Romero, and Torres appeal finally and conclusively determines the issue of their suspensions. We turn to whether the order resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits that is effectively unreviewable after final judgment. 31 Addressing these issues slightly out of order, we begin with the question whether the order suspending Cepeda, Romero, and Torres is effectively reviewable after final judgment. Subsequent to the actions that gave rise to their suspensions, their former client, Esso, retained other counsel. Cepeda, Romero, and Torres are no longer in the underlying litigation at all. In Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman, 775 F.2d 535 (3d Cir.1985), we held that an order imposing Rule 11 sanctions against an attorney no longer representing a party in a case was collaterally final under Cohen. See id. at 538-40. In that case, we reasoned that the attorney could not effectively appeal the sanctions after final judgment because the parties to the suit might not appeal, leaving open the possibility that the attorney would be unable to appeal his sanction, and, even if he were able to appeal, the attorney may be unaware of the entry of final judgment, leaving open the possibility that he would be unable to file a timely notice of appeal. See id. at 538-39. Eavenson Auchmuty therefore controls our inquiry and leads us to conclude that the order from which Cepeda, Romero, and Torres appeal is effectively unreviewable after final judgment. 32 The next question is whether our review of the order imposing sanctions will force us to examine the merits of the underlying case thereby rendering the appeal not completely separate from the merits. We have followed the rule that a finding of separateness [in this regard] is dependent on the facts in any given case. Martin v. Brown, 63 F.3d 1252, 1261 n. 11 (3d Cir.1995). 7 Here, our review of the order suspending Cepeda, Romero, and Torres would not force us to examine the merits of the case at all. Cepeda, Romero, and Torres each argue that the district court failed to afford them due process of law. Reviewing such a claim would require our examining the notice the court gave to Cepeda, Romero, and Torres, and the opportunity it gave them to be heard on the matter. This review of the process by which the court imposed the sanctions in no way touches on the merits. 33 Finally, we must consider whether the process due an attorney prior to a court's suspending him is important in the Cohen sense. [A]n issue is important if the interests that would potentially go unprotected without immediate appellate review of that issue are significant relative to the efficiency interests sought to be advanced by adherence to the final judgment rule. In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 959 (3d Cir.1997). We addressed this very issue in Martin, and concluded that protection of the constitutionally recognized right of due process in this context is sufficiently important to warrant immediate appeal. See Martin, 63 F.3d at 1261. This is especially true where, as here, the sanction imposed is not a mere monetary fine but the more severe sanction of the suspension of an attorney from practicing before a court. Suspension, much more than a fine, impose[s] significant burdens on the reputation and career opportunities of the sanctioned attorney. Id. Therefore, relying on Martin, we hold that the issue raised by Cepeda, Romero, and Torres on appeal satisfies the importance prong of the Cohen test. 34 In sum, because we believe that the order suspending Cepeda, Romero, and Torres is collaterally final under Cohen, we hold that we have jurisdiction over the appeal of that order. 35
36 Cepeda, Romero, and Torres submit that their suspensions cannot stand because the district court did not afford them particularized notice of the form of the sanctions they faced. They had no way of knowing, they contend, that the possibility of suspension as a sanction existed. Therefore, they conclude, their right to due process was infringed. Our review is plenary. See Martin, 63 F.3d at 1262. 37 In considering the suspension of an attorney as a sanction, courts must provide the attorney with due process. Eash v. Riggins Trucking, Inc., 757 F.2d 557, 570 (3d Cir.1985) (noting that the imposition of a sanction on an attorney, including disbarment and other disciplinary actions, implicates due process concerns); cf. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2464, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980) (Like other sanctions, attorney's fees certainly should not be assessed lightly or without fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record.); Rogal v. American Broad. Cos., 74 F.3d 40, 44 (3d Cir.1996) (The imposition of monetary sanctions by a court implicates fundamental notions of due process....). Although the precise contours of the process that is due varies given the particular context, the fundamental requirements of due process--notice and an opportunity to respond--must be afforded before any sanction is imposed. Martin, 63 F.3d at 1261. Similarly, prior to the suspension of an attorney from practicing before the District Court of the Virgin Islands because of misconduct as defined by local rule, an attorney must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. D.V.I. R. 83.2(b)(4)(A). 38 The party against whom sanctions are being considered is entitled to notice of the legal rule on which the sanctions would be based, the reasons for the sanctions, and the form of the potential sanctions. See Simmerman v. Corino, 27 F.3d 58, 64 (3d Cir.1994). Without such notice, the opportunity to be heard would be meaningless: [o]nly with this information can a party respond to the court's concerns in an intelligent manner. Id. In other words, a party cannot adequately defend himself against the imposition of sanctions unless he or she is aware of the issues that must be addressed to avoid the sanctions. As one treatise writer has explained, [d]ramatic differences in the relief being considered by the district court may lead to substantially different (e.g., more detailed, differently directed) responses by the alleged offender. Gregory P. Joseph, Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse § 17(D)(1)(d), at 343 (2d ed.1994) (discussing Rule 11 sanctions in particular); see also Rule 11 in Transition: The Report of the Third Circuit Task Force on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 34 (Stephen B. Burbank, reporter, 1989)[hereinafter Burbank]. 39 A brief examination of three of our cases illustrates the operation of this notice rule and the policy justifications supporting it. In Fellheimer, Eichen & Braverman, P.C. v. Charter Technologies, Inc., 57 F.3d 1215 (3d Cir.1995), we rejected a party's argument that he was denied adequate notice because of the failure to notify him that sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, in addition to those under Rule 11, were being considered. We noted that a showing of bad faith conduct is required to impose sanctions under § 1927 but is not required under Rule 11. See id. at 1225. Without notice that possible § 1927 sanctions were at stake, a party might not employ his opportunity to be heard to rebut charges of bad faith. However, our examination of the context and the factual background of the case revealed that the party was well aware that he was being charged with bad faith conduct. See id. at 1226-27. That he was unaware of the possible § 1927 sanctions was immaterial, for he knew that he would need to confront the charge of bad faith conduct to defend himself in the sanction proceeding. In short, our concern in Fellheimer was that the party in fact had the opportunity to mount a meaningful defense. When it became evident that under the circumstances he did, we determined that the notice had been adequate. 40 In our discussion in Fellheimer, we distinguished Jones v. Pittsburgh National Corp., 899 F.2d 1350 (3d Cir.1990). In Jones, the party was not explicitly notified of the possibility of § 1927 sanctions, nor did the context or factual background of the case suggest that he was charged with bad faith conduct. See id. at 1357. Because the party was not on notice as to the particular factors that he must address if he is to avoid sanctions, notice was inadequate. See id. 41 Although in both Fellheimer and Jones we focused on notice as to the legal rule on which the sanctions were based, particularized notice must also be given as to the form of the contemplated sanction, as is illustrated in Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81 (3d Cir.1987) (per curiam). In Gagliardi, the party moving for sanctions under Rule 11 sought attorney's fees, dismissal of the underlying claim, and other relief the court might deem appropriate. See id. at 83. The court granted the sanctions in the form of an injunction. We explained that the general request for other appropriate relief did not put the party on notice that injunctive relief was possible. See id. 8 Therefore, we vacated the award of sanctions and remanded so that the party could be notified of the possibility of an injunction and respond accordingly. See id. 42 In the present case, neither Cepeda, Romero, nor Torres received particularized notice that the court was contemplating suspending them from practicing law as a sanction. Although the court made clear the legal rules on which it would base sanctions and the reasons for the sanctions, the court limited its discussion of the form of the possible sanctions to monetary sanctions and dismissal of claims. See, e.g., Tutu II, 162 F.R.D. at 91. As far as we can tell, the possibility of suspension arose for the first time in the court's third and final published opinion on the matter, when the court actually imposed the suspensions. Neither did the parties moving for sanctions seek suspension; their papers before the district court sought only monetary sanctions and dismissal. 9 43 A number of parties have pointed to two judicial pronouncements that they contend should have put Cepeda, Romero, and Torres on at least constructive notice of the possibility of suspension. Even assuming that constructive notice would be sufficient, a doubtful proposition, we find these pronouncements to be inadequate. First, the court did mention, in passing during an October 28, 1993, hearing, the possible breach of the Canon of Ethics. The court did not elaborate nor did it ever again raise the Canon of Ethics. This mention is simply too vague, inconclusive, and preliminary to put Cepeda, Romero, or Torres on notice of the possible sanction of suspension. 44 Second, the court noted that it planned to utilize its inherent powers as a basis for sanctions. A number of parties submit that, because a court may employ its inherent powers to suspend an attorney, Cepeda, Romero, and Torres should therefore have been on notice that the court was considering suspension. We are unpersuaded. As we discuss infra, a court's inherent powers put at its disposal a wide range of possible sanctions. Surely we cannot expect a party to defend against each and every one of these possible sanctions simply because a court signals its intention to rely on such powers. Rather, more particularized notice is required. In this respect, we rely upon Gagliardi, 834 F.2d at 83. Just as in Gagliardi, in which we held that a request for any remedy the court might deem appropriate was too general to put a party on notice that an injunction might issue, we hold that the mere mention of a court's inherent powers does not put a party on notice that suspension is a possible sanction. 45 Knowing that they faced possible suspension as well as possible monetary sanctions would have been vitally important to Cepeda, Romero, and Torres as they prepared for the sanctions proceedings. In addition to presenting legal and factual arguments pertaining to the particular conduct that gave rise to the sanctions proceedings and their individual culpability, the attorneys likely would have presented evidence concerning their professional careers, their contributions to the legal profession and the community, their character, and the like. The proceedings would have followed a different path as the alleged offenders led the court to consider a wider array of information. Put differently, had Cepeda, Romero, and Torres been on notice that they faced suspension, they doubtless would have utilized their opportunity to be heard to raise different matters. As it happened, because of the lack of notice, the attorneys' opportunity to be heard was less than meaningful; they were not given the appropriate opportunity to present relevant defenses to the penalties which they were ultimately assessed. 46 We conclude that neither Cepeda, Romero, nor Torres received the particularized notice to which they were entitled. Because their rights to due process were violated, we will vacate that portion of the order on appeal suspending them from practice in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. 10