Add to ORKGWhen lawyers pursue frivolous claims, they invite sanctions. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires attorneys to certify that the pleadings and motions they submit are meritorious. Since 1993, attorneys have been required to serve opposing counsel with a motion—to fire a warning shot—when they intend to file for sanctions. This provides attorneys an opportunity to seek “safe harbor” and avoid sanctions by withdrawing or amending actions brought for an improper purpose
The Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel has evolved since its inception. Originally, the ...
The purpose of this article is to explore the substantive provisions of amended Rule 11 and its hist...
The 1983 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure arose from concern over the flood of litigation ...
In a unanimous en banc ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Townsend v. Holman Consulting ...
With only a small risk of overstatement, one could say that sanctions in civil litigation exploded d...
In March 2017, in Northern Illinois Telecom, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A., the U.S. Court of Appeals for t...
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires courts to sanction attorneys who file frivolous papers. ...
This article examines the Townsend decision and its interpretation and application of Rule 11 sancti...
This Note traces the history of the Seventh Circuit\u27s recent use of Rule 11 in actions involving ...
In Business Guides, Inc v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, the Ninth Circuit held that clients...
Since its amendment in 1983, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has become the focus of...
In EEOC v. Concentra Health Services and Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, the...
Prior to the 1983 amendments to Rule 11, there was some concern as to whether or not the Federal Rul...
This article will argue that the standard for imposing sanctions under Rule 11 should focus on the n...
The House of Representatives has passed H.R. 720, a bill that would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rul...
The Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel has evolved since its inception. Originally, the ...
The purpose of this article is to explore the substantive provisions of amended Rule 11 and its hist...
The 1983 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure arose from concern over the flood of litigation ...
In a unanimous en banc ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Townsend v. Holman Consulting ...
With only a small risk of overstatement, one could say that sanctions in civil litigation exploded d...
In March 2017, in Northern Illinois Telecom, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A., the U.S. Court of Appeals for t...
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires courts to sanction attorneys who file frivolous papers. ...
This article examines the Townsend decision and its interpretation and application of Rule 11 sancti...
This Note traces the history of the Seventh Circuit\u27s recent use of Rule 11 in actions involving ...
In Business Guides, Inc v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, the Ninth Circuit held that clients...
Since its amendment in 1983, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has become the focus of...
In EEOC v. Concentra Health Services and Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, the...
Prior to the 1983 amendments to Rule 11, there was some concern as to whether or not the Federal Rul...
This article will argue that the standard for imposing sanctions under Rule 11 should focus on the n...
The House of Representatives has passed H.R. 720, a bill that would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rul...
The Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel has evolved since its inception. Originally, the ...
The purpose of this article is to explore the substantive provisions of amended Rule 11 and its hist...
The 1983 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure arose from concern over the flood of litigation ...