Opinion ID: 1285713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prefiling Investigation.

Text: Using the deferential standard of review, we examine the record as to the prefiling inquiry of counsel. Under our statute and rule an attorney must conduct a reasonable inquiry as to the facts and the law before the petition is signed and filed. Compliance is measured by an objective, not subjective, standard of reasonableness under the circumstances. Our rule and statute make sanctions mandatory when a violation occurs, but whether a violation has occurred is a matter for the court to determine, and this involves matters of judgment and degree. See O'Connell v. Champion Int'l Corp., 812 F.2d 393, 395 (8th Cir.1987). The district court found Mathias's counsel was contacted by the client almost literally within hours of the earliest time for the calculating of the running of the statute of limitations. Mathias indicated she had suffered from and had been treated for seizures following the accident. The court found it was reasonable for counsel to allege mental illness as a defense to the running of the statute of limitations. The court concluded: With the statute of limitations looming so close, and in light of the lack of Iowa case law defining what constitutes mental illness for the purposes of Section 614.8, it was reasonable to assert mental illness as a bar to the running of the statute of limitations when the attorney became aware that the client had suffered some seizures as a result of the auto accident. In determining whether a reasonable inquiry into facts has been made the court considers all relevant circumstances including: a. the amount of time that was available to the signer to investigate the facts; b. the complexity of the factual and legal issues in question; c. the extent to which pre-signing investigation was feasible; d. the extent to which pertinent facts were in possession of opponent or third parties or otherwise not readily available to the signer; e. the knowledge of the signer; f. the extent to which counsel relied upon his or her client for the facts underlying the pleading, motion or other paper; g. the extent to which counsel had to rely upon his or her client for facts underlying the pleading, motion or other paper; h. whether the case was accepted from another attorney and, if so, at what stage of the proceedings; i. the extent to which counsel relied upon other counsel for the facts underlying the pleading, motion or other paper; j. the extent to which counsel had to rely upon other counsel for the facts underlying the pleading, motion or other paper; k. the resources reasonably available to the signer to devote to the inquiry; and l. the extent to which the signer was on notice that further inquiry might be appropriate. See American Bar Association Section on Litigation, Standard and Guidelines for Practice under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1988) reprinted in 121 F.R.D. 101, 114 (1988). In determining whether a reasonable inquiry into the law has been made, the court considers all relevant circumstances including: a. the amount of time that was available to the signer to research and analyze the relevant legal issues; b. the complexity of the factual and legal issue in question; c. the clarity or ambiguity of existing law; d. the plausibility of the legal positions asserted; e. whether the signer is an attorney or pro se litigant; f. the knowledge of the signer; g. whether the case was accepted from another attorney, and, if so, at what stage in the proceedings; h. the extent to which counsel relies upon other counsel to conduct the legal research and analysis underlying the position asserted; i. the extent to which counsel had to rely upon other counsel to conduct the legal research and analysis underlying the position asserted; j. the resources reasonably available to the signer to devote to the inquiry; and k. the extent to which the signer was on notice that further inquiry might be appropriate. American Bar Association Section on Litigation, Standard and Guidelines for Practice under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1988) reprinted in 121 F.R.D. at 116-17. We find ample evidence in the record to support the trial court determination that counsel had exercised reasonable inquiry as to both the facts and the law.