In Seattle, serious sanctions

“An unprecedented $400,000 fine against one of Seattle’s largest law firms is shaking the legal community, prompting some lawyers to predict that local litigation may never be the same. … In an opinion circulating throughout the city’s law offices, a King County Superior Court judge found that the Dorsey & Whitney law firm had no […]

“An unprecedented $400,000 fine against one of Seattle’s largest law firms is shaking the legal community, prompting some lawyers to predict that local litigation may never be the same. … In an opinion circulating throughout the city’s law offices, a King County Superior Court judge found that the Dorsey & Whitney law firm had no good reason for filing eight of the 18 claims in a wealthy client’s prolonged, high-stakes business dispute. … In her opinion, King County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Barnett wrote that lawyers sometimes need to say no to deep-pocketed clients even if it’s ‘bad for business.'” Fans of the ruling hope it will discourage shotgun litigation in which lawyers aim as many likely and unlikely claims as they can assemble in hopes something will hit the target, while critics complain that the prospect of sanctions will discourage attorneys from being appropriately “zealous” on behalf of their clients (on which argument see Jul. 17). (Kathy George, “Law firm fined for ‘piling on’ claims”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 10)

Comments are closed.