Big sanctions day!

On Nov. 17, 2023, 2/2 issued this unpub'd decision sanctioning counsel for appellant, who had "filed an utterly offensive opposition" to a motion to dismiss an appeal and sanctions request. The court denied the respondents motion, but forwarded the opposition to the State Bar given "counsel's unfounded, outrageous, offensive, and insulting remarks about the judiciary" and deferred the issue of sanctions. Appellant's counsel then filed a reply brief on the merits that repeated "the unfounded inflammatory comments about the judiciary" that prompted the prior referral to the State Bar. Appellant's counsel also "unreasonably delayed sharing the appellate record in violation of rule 8.153." Obviously the court was also upset that appellant's counsel "leveled outrageous comments against the judiciary" and "persisted in raising unfounded and offensive accusations against this court" even after the court had issued an order notifying the parties that counsel's opposition was being forwarded to the State Bar. Counsel also was a no-show at oral argument, had "filed a wholly meritless motion to augment the record" that was denied--yet continued to cite the excluded purported evidence in the reply brief. The court awarded sanctions of $1440 to respondent and $5000 to the court for "relentless offensive filings and communications (as well as attempted communications that have now been blocked").

The decision quoted last month's Snoeck published opinion: "An attorney must . . . maintain a respectful attitude toward the court.  [Citations.]”  (People v. Chong (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 232, 243; see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068; Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Inc. (Oct. 2, 2023, B321566) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, [2023 Cal.App.LEXIS 5855] [as an officer of the court, an attorney owes the court and opposing counsel professional courtesy].)"

That case alone would've been big appellate sanctions news. But there's more! The same day, 2/2 also dismissed an appeal and imposed sanctions in this unpub'd decision too -- for $5K to respondent and another $5K to the court -- against the same attorney in a different appeal representing a different appellant. This time there was an "unintelligible opening brief"; an opposition in the trial court that accused the trial judge of engaging in dilatory tactics, and accused the judge of bias. When given a chance to file a 1500-word letter brief re sanctions, she filed a 9477word brief. The court concluded that the appeal was "patently frivolous" and that counsel engaged in "outrageous conduct throughout this case" and "doubled down, using her appellate briefs as a platform to groundlessly disparage the trial court, this appellate court, and the legal system as a whole." The court again cited the new Snoeck opinion.

See Tim Kowal's post here: Race, gender, and Jewish conspiracies get attorney sanctioned $10,000