NCJ Number
116966
Date Published
1988
Length
211 pages
Annotation
This study examined attitudes toward and the workings of amended Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- a vehicle for imposing broader affirmative duties and prohibitions on attorneys and clients and for deterring frivolous filings.
Abstract
Data sources included interviews with 36 judges and 60 lawyers, district and appellate opinions published between 1983 and 1987, and cases from State bar disciplinary offices. Overall, Rule 11 was widely supported by both bench and bar, including lawyers who had been sanctioned, particularly as a deterrent of frivolous pleading. Concerns, however, were expressed about the Rule's effect on creative advocacy or unpopular causes and the lack of clear procedural safeguards. Case law and field research indicate that the primary goals of sanctions imposed under Rule 11 include deterrence and compensation. Satellite litigation occurred primarily in cases involving large compensatory sanction awards, not in those involving modest monetary or nonmonetary sanctions. Modest sanctions tended to facilitate the settlement process, although judges and lawyers viewed the threat or imposition of sanctions as potentially coercive. Active judicial case management may prevent the accumulation of large awards that create incentives for satellite litigation, and due process concerns can be accommodated by providing attorneys with prior notice of particular sanctionable behaviors and formal or informal opportunities to explain their behavior. Further, there was little evidence that Rule 11 has had a chilling effect on creative advocacy or unpopular causes. Overall, Rule 11 has begun to achieve its goal of deterring frivolous filings, primarily by making lawyers more aware of their professional duty to investigate and research claims before filing. Table of cases, 413 footnotes, and 33 tables.