Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the district court’s dismissal of an employee discrimination claim and sanctioning the plaintiff’s attorney due to the “utterly frivolous” nature of the brief that was filed on appeal. See McCurry v. Kenco Logistics Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783, 786 (7th Cir. 2019)
In the case at issue the plaintiff filed two complaints with the district court, pro se, after her contract with her employer expired and she was terminated. In her complaints the plaintiff alleged that her employer and her supervisors discriminated against her based on her race, sex, age, and disability. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants conspired to violate her civil rights. However, due to the incoherent nature of the complaints and a failure by the plaintiff to follow local summary-judgment rules, the district court decided to dismiss the claims.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff retained counsel and appealed.
However, the brief that her attorney submitted to the Seventh Circuit fared no better. Affirming the district court’s decision to dismiss the case, the court admonished the attorney and sanctioned him for failing to recognize that his client had a “hopeless” employment case and for allowing his client to write and submit her own appellate brief under his name.
When submitting claims to the court Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 3.1 provides in part that “ [a] lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous….” (emphasis added). Here, the brief submitted by the attorney on appeal was “utterly frivolous” and in the words of the Seventh Circuit, a “monstrosity of an appellate brief.” Id. The court-imposed sanctions because the defendants had the burden and expense of defending the appeal and the appeal wasted judicial resources.
In response to the opinion, the attorney provided an apologetic response admitting to his error in judgement and explaining that he took the case because he had been a longtime friend of the plaintiff and reluctantly agreed to represent her.
This case highlights the importance of a lawyer’s duty to only file meritorious claims that are based on law and fact, regardless of whether the client is friend or family member.
Read the full opinion here.
