The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is unhappy. Judging by its recent opinions, the court thinks that too many appeals it hears involve frivolous claims and conduct for which there is no legitimate explanation. Both attorneys and parties are paying the price.

In the first quarter of 2013, the Seventh Circuit:

For example, in one recent appeal, the Seventh Circuit sanctioned an attorney who was representing himself. The court found that the appeal was frivolous because the attorney could not identify any legal authority or record evidence supporting his position. The Seventh Circuit noted that the attorney appeared to be deliberately stalling enforcement of the judgment against him. The court ordered the parties to file additional papers about the size of the sanction. (Harris N.A. v. Hershey, No. 11-1550, (7th Cir. Mar. 29, 2013).)

In a second case, the appellate court remanded to the district court to consider whether to sanction plaintiffs' counsel, attorneys from a prominent securities litigation firm. While deferring to the district court in the first instance, the Seventh Circuit voiced concerns that the plaintiffs' attorneys deliberately ignored warning signs that should have alerted them to the fatal defects in their complaint. (City of Livonia Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Boeing Co., Nos. 12-1899 and 12-2009, (7th Cir. Mar. 26, 2013).) For information on pleading standards in federal district court, see Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint: Pleading Standards and Requirements.

The Seventh Circuit also remanded for consideration of sanctions in another case last month. The court indicated that both the jurisdictional allegations and the merits allegations of the plaintiff's complaint were frivolous. It also suggested that the self-represented plaintiff might simply be trying to harass a creditor. (El v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 12-3310, (7th Cir. Mar. 20, 2013).) For information on federal jurisdiction, see Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Initial Considerations: Does the Court Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over the Case?

While it denied a motion for sanctions in a fourth case, the Seventh Circuit delivered a broad warning to parties seeking to vacate arbitration awards. The court explained that federal law gives great deference to arbitration proceedings and "challenges to commercial arbitral awards," therefore, "bear a high risk of sanctions" (Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Edman Controls, Inc., Nos. 12-2308 and 12-2623, (7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2013)). For information on challenging and enforcing arbitration awards in federal court, see Practice Notes, Understanding the Federal Arbitration Act and Enforcing Arbitration Awards in the US.

Given this recent precedent, attorneys practicing in the Seventh Circuit must make certain not only that their arguments have strong legal and factual bases, but also that they can explain the propriety of their actions. The court has little patience for delaying tactics and other forms of obstructionism. The perception of this kind of conduct appears to be a common theme in the court's discussion of sanctions.