Rule 11 - Sanctions and a Lawyer's Failure to Conduct Competent Legal Research
![handle is hein.journals/capulr29 and id is 691 raw text is: RULE 11-SANCTIONS AND A LAWYER'S FAILURE TO
CONDUCT COMPETENT LEGAL RESEARCH
MARGUERITE L. BUTLER*
I. INTRODUCTION
Federal courts are inherently responsible for appropriately sanctioning
a lawyer who has poorly prepared for litigation by improperly researching
the law in the case.' State courts generally obtain this authority by statute
or court rule.2 Although Rule 11 is not the only statutory authority that
Copyright 0 2001, Marguerite L. Butler.
* Associate Professor and Law Library Director at Texas Southern University,
Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Houston, Texas. Since no successful endeavor can
occur without the help of others, the author wishes to thank all those persons whose
invaluable assistance contributed to this final document. No words can express the
appreciation that I have for DeCarlous Spearman, my Associate Director; without her
unselfish support, every aspect of this task would have been impossible. The dedicated
TMSL law librarians Anya Anga, Evelyn Beard and Gwen Harvey assisted in finding many
of the supporting documents; J.D. Matthews' and Lonnie Prothro's invaluable computer
savvy kept me going when the computer refused to cooperate; and the members of my
library staff who kept the library running at peak efficiency during my many days of
hibernation and encouraged me in my efforts. I also owe a tremendous thank-you to those
persons who assisted me by reading and editing the manuscript for publication, Profs. Anna
James, Catherine Smith, and Edieth Wu, Frank Houdek, Law Library Journal Editor,
Pamela Fiawoo, Cornelius Jones, Sabrina Williams, Sarah Williams, and Carla Whitt. I am
also indebted to Elsie Kelley, my extraordinary administrative assistant, and Latrice
Wynne, my work-study student, for their meticulous administrative assistance.
See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-49 (1991). After examining the
legislative history of the 1983 Federal Rule amendments the Court generally discussed the
federal court's inherent authority to assess attorney's fees in specific types of cases and
specifically addressing the advisory Committee Notes on the 1983 Rule 11 amendments.
The Court explained that the Rule 'build[s] upon and expand[s] the [federal] equitable
doctrine permitting the court to award expenses, including attorney's fees, to a litigant
whose opponent acts in bad faith in instituting or conducting litigation.' Id. at 48 (citing
the Advisory Committee's Notes on the 1983 Amendment to Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. app. at
575). In quoting the language found in Zaldivar v. Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 830 (9th Cir.
1986), the court recognized that Rule 11 does not repeal or modify existing authority of
federal courts to deal with abuses... under the court's inherent power. Id. at 48-49.
2 See Alan Stephens, Annotation, Attorney's Liability Under State Law For
Opposing Party's Counsel Fees, 56 A.L.R.4th 486 § 4 (a) - (b) (1987 & Supp. 2000) which
(continued)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/capulr29&div=28&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Rule 11 - Sanctions and a Lawyer's Failure to Conduct Competent Legal Research
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most