Last month, Judge McBryde brought the hammer down in a 114-page opinion in a sanction proceeding against Triple Tee Golf, its principal, and three of its attorneys (opinion available here). The result was not pretty:
- Triple Tee’s principal was found to have violated Rule 11 by submitting a false declaration (accusing Judge McBryde of “exhibit[ing] personal and extra-judicial bias and prejudice against” the principal) in an attempt to prevent Judge McBryde from presiding over Triple Tee’s lawsuit against Nike. Judge McBryde noted that, in addition to violating Rule 11, the principal “appears to have committed the criminal offense of perjury and subornation of perjury” and referred the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas to initiate any criminal action that might be appropriate.
- Judge McBryde found that “Attorney A” (as the case is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, we are not identifying the relevant individuals) also violated Rule 11 by submitting his own false declaration, and that the attorney appeared to have committed perjury. Similarly, Judge McBryde requested that the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas give consideration to prosecuting the attorney for perjury. The attorney was also prohibited from practicing in the Northern District of Texas for ten years, and ordered to attend 30 hours of a legal ethics course. The appropriate state disciplinary authorities were also notified of Judge McBryde’s findings.
- “Attorney B,” according to Judge McBryde, may have procured the principal or Attorney A to commit perjury. Attorney B’s conduct was therefore referred to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Attorney B was prohibited permanently from seeking admission to the Northern District of Texas and ordered to attend 30 hours of a legal ethics course. The relevant state disciplinary authorities would also be notified of Judge McBryde’s findings, and Attorney B was required to pay $8,000 to the clerk of court to reimburse the Court for one-half of the payment the Court made to Lyndell Kirkley for the time and expense Mr. Kirkley devoted and incurred in providing assistance to the Court in connection with the sanctions proceeding.
- “Attorney C,” a well-known Northern District of Texas practitioner from Fort Worth, was found to have violated Rule 11 because he did not have a reasonable basis to believe that the false factual contentions contained in the principal’s declaration were true, or had evidentiary support, when Attorney C presented the declaration to the Court with the invitation to the Court to consider the false declaration. Attorney C’s Northern District of Texas bar membership was suspended for two years (with the exception for his currently pending cases). He was also required to attend 30 hours worth of a course in legal ethics, and to pay $8,000 to the clerk of court for the other half of Mr. Kirkley’s expenses.
The entire 114-page opinion is well worth a read. For practicing attorneys, we believe the biggest lesson to be learned from the opinion is that, when things seem odd with the facts that your client has relayed to you (even if your client is willing to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury), it is best to conduct your own investigation into the facts or refuse to submit any pleading referencing or advocating your client’s version of the facts until they can be corroborated as much as possible. This is especially so when your client wants you to call into question the integrity of a federal judge. You may lose a client, but that is a lot better than finding yourself in a sanction proceeding and suspended from the practice of law before a particular court.