Appeals Court: Lawyer Sanctions Shouldn’t Induce Fear of 'Uncharismatic’ Clients
An appeals court in Washington state has overturned sanctions that had been imposed against a lawyer on the ground he helped his client file an ungrounded lawsuit against a physician.
Ruling in a sexual abuse lawsuit filed by a patient, the appeals court said a lawyer who conducts a reasonable investigation should not be sanctioned for taking on a client who turns out to lack credibility.
The ruling overturned much of a 2006 ruling by the trial judge, Katherine Stolz of Pierce County, the Seattle Times reports. Stolz had ruled for physician Dennis Momah on a defamation counterclaim against a patient, Perla Saldivar, who claimed the doctor had improperly touched her and allowed his twin brother, also a physician, to impersonate him. The appellate ruling allows a trial.
Stolz had ruled in 2006 that Saldivar had fabricated the allegations and ordered her to pay Dennis Momah $2.8 million in damages. She also had harsh words for Saldivar’s lawyer, Harish Bharti, ordering him to pay $300,000 in fines and post her opinion on his website, the story says. Stolz said Bharti had signed a complaint and responses to interrogatories without a reasonable belief that they were true and well-grounded in fact. She also said he had filed “irrelevant and salacious declarations” to elicit media attention and damage Momah’s reputation.
Dennis Momah’s brother, Charles, was convicted of rape and indecent liberties with patients in 2005, the story says. Dennis Momah was never criminally charged.
The appeals court opinion said Stolz should have allowed much of the evidence she barred and said the judge abused her discretion when she sanctioned Bharti.
“Each of the bases for the trial court’s imposition of sanctions rests solely on the trial court’s view of Perla’s credibility and reliance on the medical records created by the defendants,” the appeals court said. “But, absent a showing that the attorney suborned perjury, it is improper to impose sanctions on an attorney based solely on the ultimate determination of his client’s credibility.”
The court said a contrary ruling might cause lawyers who fear sanction to “turn down cases on behalf of uncharismatic individuals seeking redress in the courts.”
The court said Bharti had taken reasonable steps to investigate Perla’s claims when he interviewed Perla, her friends and family, all of whom told of the alleged sexual abuse.
However it did say Bharti apparently violated a protective order by showing his client a video of a deposition given by Charles Momah and may be liable for sanctions for that wrongdoing.
Seattle lawyer Howard Goodfriend, who represented Saldivar and Bharti on appeal, told the Seattle Times the ruling “is very important for lawyers.”
“It says if a lawyer makes a reasonable investigation and their client’s allegations are supported by corroborative evidence, the attorney has done his ethical duty,” Goodfriend said.
