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

Heading: Count Two: Pope v. Federal Express Corporation

Text: In Pope v. Federal Express Corp., 138 F.R.D. 675 (W.D.Mo.1990), the court found that Respondent attempted to use a forged document to support the plaintiff's sexual harassment claim. Id. at 680-82. This document was a computer generated report on which a forged handwritten note had been added. The note read: Carol, you feel good! Danny. Id. at 677. The court also found that Respondent continued to rely on this document as support for her client's claim long after she learned that the document was a forgery. Id. at 683. In particular, she continued to engage in discovery, filed amended designations of experts, and submitted supplemental deposition testimony. Id. at 681. After rejecting Respondent's theory that the forged document was manufactured by some unknown person in an attempt to discredit her client, Pope v. Federal Express Corp., 138 F.R.D. 684, 688-89 (W.D.Mo.1991), the court imposed monetary sanctions of $30,000. Id. at 690. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's findings regarding Respondent's sanctionable conduct, but remanded for reconsideration of the appropriateness of the sanction. Pope v. Federal Express Corp., 974 F.2d 982, 983-85 (8th Cir.1992). Subsequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's reduced sanction of $25,000 noting that Respondent knowingly offered a falsified document into evidence. Pope v. Federal Express Corp., 49 F.3d 1327, 1328 (8th Cir.1995). Informant charges in Count II that Respondent has violated Rules 4-3.1, 4-3.2, 4-3.3(a)(4), 4-3.4(b), 4-8.4(a), 4-8.4(c), and 4-8.4(d) of the Missouri Rules. This Court holds that Respondent violated Rule 4-3.1 by pursuing a claim that lacked a non-frivolous basis because she pursued her client's claim after it had become apparent that the claim was not well-founded in fact. Respondent also violated Rule 4-3.2 by failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, because she continued to engage in discovery and to file documents with the court after it had become apparent that her client's claim was not well-founded in fact. Respondent also violated Rule 4-3.3(a)(4), which forbids a lawyer from knowingly ... offer[ing] evidence that the lawyer knows to be false and requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures if the lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity. Not only did Respondent fail to take remedial measures when she became aware that the document was a forgery, but also she continued to make use of the document by offering it as evidence. Further, Respondent violated Rule 4-8.4(c), which states that [i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by continuing to depend upon a document that she knew to be a forgery. Respondent also violated Rules 4-8.4(a) and 4-8.4(d) by committing multiple rule violations and by engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Informant also charged Respondent with a violation of Rule 4-3.4(b), which forbids a lawyer from falsifying evidence. Although Respondent certainly used the manufactured document in the proceedings, the Pope court did not find that she manufactured the document or assisted anyone in manufacturing the document. Because the origins of the manufactured document remain unclear, this Court finds no violation of Rule 4-3.4(b).