Opinion ID: 412736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proof of Bad Faith

Text: 14 Judge Aspen based his finding of bad faith on the part of attorney Woolley upon the following factors: (1) the obvious meritlessness of the section 301 claim; (2) the failure to provide any factual or legal support for the sundry constitutional claims; (3) counsel's omission of a key sentence from a quotation; and (4) the failure to respond to defendant's motion for fees and costs. Judge Aspen found that these derelictions were not excused by Woolley's explanations. 15 The first two factors, which basically charge Woolley with bringing a frivolous lawsuit, cannot lightly be dismissed. Judge Learned Hand once stated that as a litigant, I should dread a lawsuit beyond almost anything else short of sickness and death. Quoted in M. Mayer, The Lawyers 9 (1967). Defending any lawsuit, even one totally devoid of merit, and even though short of Jarndyce proportions, can be an expensive and time consuming process. Accordingly, although a finding of meritlessness will not support a finding of bad faith in and of itself, that an attorney filed such a suit is evidence that should be considered along with any other facts. See Driscoll v. Oppenheimer, 500 F.Supp. 174, 175 (N.D.Ill.1980). 16 Other relevant factors are the reasons for filing the suit and whether the attorney was aware of the meritlessness of the action. Both factors weigh in favor of a finding of bad faith in this case. Counsel claimed that he filed this suit at plaintiff's insistence despite his knowledge of the exhaustion requirement. If there are any acceptable reasons for filing a frivolous suit, this is certainly not one of them. We agree with Elihu Root that [a]bout half of the practice of a decent lawyer is telling wouldbe clients that they are damned fools and should stop. Quoted in A. Kaufman, Problems in Professional Responsibility (1976). We refuse to accept the notion that counsel may shift responsibility for a frivolous suit to his client. 17 Woolley provided no other explanation for the suit other than his unfounded belief that plaintiff was somehow excused from the exhaustion requirement. We need not determine whether a sincere belief in the merits of a claim is sufficient to absolve an attorney from blame as that is not the case here. In support of his argument on this point to the district court counsel misquoted a case by omitting a sentence that undercut his position. We have previously stated that, A sloppy mistake in a quotation might be at least understandable on the part of a careless attorney. But a deliberate misquote calls for strong condemnation. Quality Molding Co. v. American National Fire Insurance Co., 287 F.2d 313, 316 (7th Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 826, 82 S.Ct. 45, 7 L.Ed.2d 29. Woolley offered no explanation for the misquote and, under the circumstances, we think that this is strong proof that he was aware of the weakness of his position. 18 Counsel's attitude toward this case was also evidenced by his failure to respond to defendant's allegations of bad faith until it became clear that he might be personally liable for the fees. He does not claim that he was unaware of the motion, and we agree with Judge Aspen that Christmas holidays and an office move do not relieve an attorney of the responsibility of at least requesting an extension of time. 19 In light of counsel's numerous and serious derelictions we hold that counsel's disregard for his duties as an attorney falls within the holding of Roadway Express and Judge Aspen's finding is not clearly erroneous.