Opinion ID: 6344086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Amount of Sanction Ordered

Text: We conclude that the trial court imposed an excessive penalty and, because we view that error as its most significant one, we begin our analysis there. When determining what sanction to impose, trial courts should expressly consider at least four factors, all of which serve to limit the amount assessed: (1) the reasonableness of the injured party’s attorneys’ fees . . . ; (2) the minimum amount that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior . . . ; (3) the offending party’s ability to pay . . . [;] and (4) the offending party’s history, experience, and ability, the severity of the violation, the degree to which malice or bad faith contributed to the violation, the risk of chilling the type of litigation involved, and other factors as deemed appropriate in individual circumstances. 6 Williams v. Bd. of Tr. of Mount Jezreel Baptist Church, 589 A.2d 901, 911-12 (D.C. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Although the first factor does not apply here (the court did not award attorney’s fees to an opponent), the remaining ones do and the trial court did not adequately consider them. Most notably, the trial court failed to assess whether the sanction it imposed exceeded “the minimum amount that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior.” Had it done so, it is unlikely it would have imposed the penalties it did—sanctions that barred appellant from seeking compensation for one year’s worth of work in four cases, several months’ worth of work in another, and, in total, deprived him of over $20,000 in income. Through these penalties, the court effectively dismissed all five fee petitions with prejudice, yet “[d]ismissal is an extreme sanction which should be granted only sparingly or in extraordinary circumstances,” District of Columbia v. Serafin, 617 A.2d 516, 519 (D.C. 1992). It is a particularly questionable sanction here, given that during the show cause hearing, appellant demonstrated an intent to avoid similar conduct by withdrawing the petitions and “promis[ing] to abide by the letter and spirit of the law with regard to the Court’s interpretation of the proper certifications.” 1 The trial court 1 By moving to withdraw his fee petitions, appellant did not intend to forgo compensation for his services. He soon filed motions “urg[ing] the court to (continued…) 7 suggested that it inferred a contrary intent by referencing appellant’s “represent[ation] that he had intended to use the added language in the certification as a template for all petitions moving forward.” However, nothing in the transcripts provided on appeal indicates that appellant made any such representations at all. 2 On remand, the court may perhaps determine that these expressions of regret do not obviate the need to impose sanctions for purposes of deterrence. However, the penalty imposed here appears to exceed what is necessary to achieve that goal. The trial court also neglected to discuss other factors that Williams required it to consider. It failed to weigh the magnitude of the sanction against the severity of the violation; assess whether appellant had a “history” of misconduct; and analyze appellant’s ability to forgo over $20,000 in income. Nor did the court expressly analyze whether “malice or bad faith contributed to the violation.” In _____________________ (…continued) reconsider its order, and allow him to re-file his fee petitions with a compliant certificate.” These motions were denied. 2 It also is possible that the record on appeal does not contain full transcriptions of the proceedings that occurred in this case. For example, in each show cause hearing, appellant’s lawyer sought to incorporate his client’s “past testimony” into the proceeding. Similarly, in its orders, the trial court noted that it heard testimony from appellant. However, the transcripts provided on appeal do not contain any testimony from Mr. Tappan. 8 these ways, the court omitted relevant factors from its analysis and the penalty it imposed cannot stand. If, on remand, the court concludes that appellant contravened Rule 11 and that his conduct warrants sanctions, it must consider the amount of the penalty anew, relying on the factors specified in Williams.