Lawyer Escapes Rule 37 Sanctions


Sutton v. Singh, Dist. Court, MD Florida 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is a routine Rule 37 sanctions case where a party refused to participate in a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The court awarded costs and a modest amount of attorney fees against the client.

The more interesting issue in this case, however, is whether a party’s former lawyer can be sanctioned for discovery noncompliance.

Here, the court denied the sanction request against the former lawyer. According to the lawyer, the day before the noticed deposition the client terminated him. He was then required to file a motion to withdraw.

The court held that the lawyer was in an impossible situation in that he could not obtain compliance from the client even though he was still counsel of record.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s