Opinion ID: 1628675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count Three: Perkins v. General Motors Corporation

Text: In Perkins v. General Motors Corp., 129 F.R.D. 655 (W.D.Mo.1990), Respondent represented her client in bringing a Title VII claim against GM. Id. at 656. After the court had reached a final judgment on the underlying claim, the court considered defendant's motion for sanctions and found that Respondent had engaged in numerous acts of misconduct. Id. at 656-57. The following is a brief summary of the district court's findings in the Perkins case: 1. Respondent made unsupported allegations that a GM manager had been the subject of prior sexual harassment charges. Id. at 660-62. She raised these allegations of misconduct in correspondence and interrogatories, as well as at trial, although she had failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the charges and had never produced any factual basis in support. Id. 2. Respondent made an affirmative misrepresentation regarding the date when she learned that a potential party's place of residence had changed. Id. at 663. Respondent stated in support of a motion to join that party that she had only recently learned that the party had moved out of Missouri. Id. Her statements were a misrepresentation, however, because she had indicated her knowledge of the party's relocation in a suit the year before. Id. 3. Respondent intentionally withheld the name of a senior GM manager who could potentially serve as a significant witness in her client's case. Id. at 664-66. Respondent failed to disclose the senior manager's name in response to GM's interrogatories and failed to later amend her responses to those interrogatories, all in an attempt to surprise GM at trial. Id. at 665-66. 4. Respondent deliberately misrepresented her ability to connect the testimony of several witnesses to her client. Id. at 669. The Court had advised Respondent that she could present testimony of witnesses regarding the work environment at GM only if she showed that her client was aware of the experiences of those witnesses. Id. She then presented several work environment witnesses with the assurance that she would connect those witnesses with her client's case, but she failed to make that connection with most of those witnesses. Id. In fact, no reasonable basis existed for asserting that she could connect those witnesses to her client. Id. 5. Respondent filed a recusal motion that had no reasonable basis in fact or law. Id. at 672. The Eighth Circuit subsequently affirmed the district court's findings regarding all aspects of Respondent's misconduct. Perkins v. General Motors Corp., 965 F.2d 597, 600-02 (8th Cir.1992). As a result of this misconduct, Informant charges in Count III that Respondent has violated Rules 4-3.1, 4-3.2, 4-3.3(a)(1), 4-3.4(a), 4-3.4(d), 4-8.4(a), and 4-8.4(d) of the Missouri Rules. This Court holds that Respondent violated Rule 4-3.1 by 1) alleging the misconduct of a GM manager when that allegation had no factual support and 2) filing a frivolous recusal motion that lacked any basis in fact or law. Respondent also violated Rule 4-3.2 by misrepresenting her knowledge of a potential party's residence and by withholding the identity of a witness in an attempt to surprise GM at trial. These actions prevented expeditious litigation by complicating the proceedings and causing unnecessary delays. Perkins, 129 F.R.D. at 664. Rule 4-3.3(a)(1) states that [a] lawyer shall not knowingly ... make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal. Respondent violated this rule by falsely representing to the court that she lacked knowledge of a potential party's change of residence and by falsely representing that she could connect the testimony of work environment witnesses to her client. Rule 4-3.4(a) states that [a] lawyer shall not ... unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence. Respondent violated this rule by intentionally withholding the name of a potentially helpful witness in an attempt to surprise the defendant at trial. Rule 4-3.4(d) states that [a] lawyer shall not ... fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party. Respondent violated this rule by failing to diligently answer GM's interrogatories with disclosure of the name of a GM employee believed to have knowledge that could be imputed to GM. The instances of Respondent's misconduct that have resulted in violations of the above noted rules also constitute violations of Rules 4-8.4(a) and 4-8.4(d).