Sanctions watch

Busted!

The MetNews has C.A. Refers Beverly Hills Firm to State Bar for ‘Consideration of Discipline’ for Fraud -- Opinion Says Lawyers Misrepresented That Proposed Order Was ‘Unopposed’ When in Fact Moving Papers Were Never Served on Opposing Party about this unpub:

Another circumstance troubles us. An appellant’s appendix must contain items from the superior court file that are necessary for proper consideration of issues, including items appellant should reasonably assume the respondent will rely on. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124(b)(1)(B).) Here, the appellant’s appendix prepared by K&L omits multiple material documents, including all of the OSCs that led to the initial dismissal of plaintiff’s case, the order reinstating the case pursuant to an allegedly unopposed motion, and the subsequent OSC that was pending when the case was dismissed for the second time. These deficiencies necessitated the filing of a respondent’s appendix to set the record straight.

The City has not requested sanctions for what amounts to a frivolous appeal. (See Estate of Kempton (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 189, 206 [appeal objectively frivolous when “appellant’s arguments rest on negligible legal foundation”].) Nor do we wish to further delay things by issuing yet another order to show cause. However, we cannot ignore K&L’s misleading conduct in the trial court, particularly in light of their decision to double-down by pursuing this appeal based on an inadequate record. Because we do not impose sanctions, referral to the State Bar is not mandatory. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.7.) But we also have inherent judicial power to discipline attorneys. (People v. Poletti (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1216, fn. 10.) Accordingly, the clerk of this court is ordered to send a copy of this opinion to the California State Bar for consideration of discipline, and we hereby inform K&L of this referral. (Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1357.) We express no opinion on what discipline, if any, is to be imposed. (Ibid.; In re Marriage of Greenberg (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1100.)

And see Law360's  Mass. Judge Apologizes For Slamming Alito Over Flags

A Massachusetts federal judge has apologized for violating ethics rules when he publicly criticized U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in the wake of reports that two flags used by Donald Trump supporters to protest the 2020 election were flown outside Alito's houses.

Senior U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor acknowledged that his May 24 opinion piece titled "A Federal Judge Wonders: How Could Alito Have Been So Foolish?" in The New York Times violated several canons of the federal judicial Code of Conduct. He issued the apology Nov. 20 in response to findings that the column diminished public confidence in the judiciary and improperly opined on pending cases, according to a judicial complaint order made public Tuesday by conservative legal group The Article III Project.