Opinion ID: 2510533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Sanctions for appellate misconduct

Text: John Benedict, of Ashworth & Benedict, was Thomas and Armstrong's counsel during the underlying proceedings before the district court, and he also prepared the opening and reply briefs in the attorney fees appeal. Thomas and Armstrong's briefs in that case advance arguments without citation to legal authority, in violation of NRAP 28(a)(4); are replete with assertions that lack citation to the appendix, in violation of NRAP 28(e); and contain factual misrepresentations, in violation of SCR 172(1)(a). Accordingly, sanctions are appropriate. Under NRAP 28(a)(4), an appellant's brief shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on. Under NRAP 28(e), Every assertion in briefs regarding matters in the record shall be supported by a reference to the page of the transcript or appendix where the matter relied on is to be found.... Briefs or memoranda of law filed in district courts shall not be incorporated by reference in briefs submitted to the Supreme Court. We have held that sanctions are appropriate when counsel merely cites to memoranda of law filed in the district court in support of claims and when briefs prepared by an attorney make assertions that are not supported by citations to the record. [28] Finally, under SCR 172(1)(a), [a] lawyer shall not knowingly... [m]ake a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal. Here, the appendix in the attorney fees appeal was lengthy, 1407 pages, and spanned seven volumes. However, Benedict rarely cited to the appendix in either the opening brief's statement of facts or the opening and reply brief's discussion sections, in violation of NRAP 28(a) and (e). Further, where citations did exist, the majority of the citations were to memoranda of law Benedict filed in the district court, which violates NRAP 28(e). Nonetheless, we thoroughly reviewed the record, and most of Benedict's factual assertions remained unfounded. Most egregious is that the opening brief accused the City and the NLVPOA of conspiracy, fabricating the charges against Armstrong, retaliation, harassment, racial and ethnic slurs, physical assault, and attempted vehicular homicide. None of those accusations were supported by citation to the record, and nothing in the record supports those assertions. Finally, in seeking attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b), Benedict stated more than once that the City filed a frivolous appeal of the order compelling arbitration and that the City [s]eeing the proverbial `writing on the wall,' and realizing its position on appeal was frivolous ... abandoned its appeal rather than face a Rule 11 violation. Benedict did not cite to the record to support this statement, and nothing in the record supports that the City abandoned its appeal rather than face a Rule 11 violation. Instead, the record demonstrates that the district court, in issuing its order compelling arbitration, noted that the City's argument had merit and thus stayed its order to allow the City and the NLVPOA to appeal its decision. When the City appealed the decision to this court, we also noted that the City's position on appeal appeared to have merit. By asserting that the City abandoned its appeal rather than face a Rule 11 violation, Benedict has made a gross misrepresentation that merits sanctions under SCR 172(1)(a). Zealous advocacy is the cornerstone of good lawyering and the bedrock of a just legal system. However, zeal cannot give way to unprofessionalism, noncompliance with court rules, or, most importantly, to violations of the ethical duties of candor to the courts and to opposing counsel. Thus, we sanction Benedict $1000 for egregious and improper appellate conduct and remind him of his duty to practice law in a professional and honest manner. Benedict shall remit this sum within 30 days of the filing of this opinion to the Supreme Court of Nevada Law Library and shall file written proof of payment with the clerk of this court within the same time frame.