Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-2146-JWL
March 1, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Junction City, Kansas' (the "City") requests for attorney fees and costs (doc. 48, 86) incurred in connection with the Motion for Protective Order filed by all Defendants in this case (doc. 31). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant in part the requests and will award the City $5,000.00 in fees and expenses, to be paid by the law firm of Anderson Associates, LLC (the "Law Firm").
I. Background Information
On July 10, 2001, the Court granted in part Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and disqualified Plaintiff's counsel from representing Plaintiff Marcus Hammond, Sr., or any other individual (including any class members) in this case. See doc. 44. The Court also granted Defendants' request for sanctions relating to the motion and directed Defendants' counsel to file an affidavit outlining the reasonable expenses and attorney fees Defendants incurred in obtaining the disqualification of Plaintiff's counsel and the other relief they requested, including the fees and expenses involved in the briefing and the evidentiary hearing. See id. The City has filed such an affidavit and attached it to a pleading entitled "Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs." See doc. 48. The Law Firm has filed a response in opposition. See doc. 85.
On July 20, 2001, Plaintiff and the Law Firm filed motions asking the Court to reconsider its July 10, 2001 decision, including the award of sanctions. See doc. 45, 49. Plaintiff and the Law Firm also asked the Court to stay the effect of its July 10 decision so that they could seek review of the decision by the District Court Judge. Defendants responded to these motions and asked the Court to award them as sanctions the fees and expenses they had incurred in responding to the Motions for Reconsideration. See doc. 54. Defendants also filed a motion to strike the entry of appearance of counsel on behalf of the Law Firm and to strike all pleadings filed by him. See doc. 53. The Court denied in significant part the Motions for Reconsideration, granted the requested stay, and deferred ruling on Defendants' request for fees and expenses until such time as the District Court Judge could rule on Plaintiff's and the Law Firm's Motions for Review. See doc. 60. In addition, the Court denied Defendants' motion to strike the entry of appearance of counsel for the Law Firm and to strike all pleadings filed by him. See id.
On January 23, 2002, Judge Lungstrum ruled on Plaintiff's and the Law Firm's Motions for Review and upheld the Magistrate's July 10, 2001 Order disqualifying Plaintiff's counsel and awarding sanctions. See doc. 75. Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge granted Defendants' request (doc. 54) for attorney fees and expenses incurred in responding to the Motions for Reconsideration, and instructed Defendants' counsel to file an affidavit outlining the reasonable attorney fees and expenses that Defendants incurred in connection with the Motions for Reconsideration. See doc. 79. The Court's Order indicated that the sanctions would, again, be imposed against the Law Firm. The City filed its affidavit on February 25, 2002 (doc. 86), and the Law Firm filed a brief in opposition (doc. 89).
II. Analysis
The Law firm opposes the imposition of any sanctions against it. In the alternative, the Law Firm requests that the amount of any sanctions awarded be limited based on the unique factual and legal issues involved here. In addition, it requests that any amount of sanctions awarded be reduced to account for Defendants' failure to prevail on their requests to strike and in their opposition to the request for stay.
As set forth above, the undersigned Magistrate Judge has already ruled that Defendants are entitled to recover a reasonable amount in attorney fees and costs in connection with the initial briefing, evidentiary hearing, and the Motions to Reconsider. Those rulings were upheld by Judge Lungstrum. The arguments advanced by the Law Firm at this point in time do not cause the Magistrate Judge to reconsider his rulings.
As Judge Lungstrum observed in his opinion upholding the disqualification, sanctions, and reconsideration orders, courts have broad discretion to fashion an appropriate sanction to remedy the problems caused by an attorney's improper ex parte contacts. See Hammond v. City of Junction City, Kansas, No. 00-2146-JWL, 2002 WL 169370, at *9 (D.Kan. Jan. 23, 2002) (citing Weeks v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-89, 230 F.3d 1201, 1211 (10th Cir 2000)). The Magistrate Judge continues to believe that he correctly exercised his discretion to impose sanctions against the Law Firm, not only to serve as a deterrent to unethical conduct but to compensate the Defendant City for at least some of the expenses and trouble it incurred as a result of Plaintiff's counsel's violation of the ethical rules.
The Court notes that although the initial requests for sanctions were filed by all Defendants, the City was the only Defendant to file follow-up affidavits itemizing the amount of fees and expenses it incurred. Thus, the Court's award of sanctions is made only with respect to the City.
At the same time, however, the Court does not find it necessary to award the City the total amount of fees and costs that it requests, i.e., the full $16, 901.83. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff's counsel and the Law Firm have already been subjected to the severe sanction of disqualification and that the matter has been referred to the disciplinary administrator. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Law Firm has incurred its own share of attorney fees and expenses — it has retained its own counsel and he has filed several substantial briefs on behalf of the Law Firm. More importantly, the Court recognizes that there is no pattern of unethical or bad faith conduct on the part of Plaintiff's counsel. As the Court observed in its disqualification order, "Plaintiff's counsel have been forthright, candid, and honest in their pleadings and communications with the Court as to the nature of their discussions." Doc. 44 at p. 30, n. 7.
For these reasons, the Court will not require the Law Firm to pay the entire amount of the fees and expenses requested by the City. Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Law Firm that no fees should be awarded for defense counsel's work on issues upon which Defendants did not prevail, i.e., Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's request for stay and Defendants' request to strike the entry of appearance of the Law Firm's counsel and to strike all pleadings filed by him.
Accordingly, the Court will limit the award of sanctions against the Law Firm to the amount of $5,000.00. Such an award strikes a balance between the need to compensate the City for the fees and expenses it has incurred and the need to deter unethical conduct.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the requests for attorney fees and costs (doc. 48, 86) filed by the Defendant City of Junction City, Kansas are granted in part and denied in part. Sanctions are hereby imposed against Anderson Associates, LLC, in the total amount of $5,000.00 . Payment of said sanctions shall be made to Defendant City of Junction City, Kansas within thirty (30) days of the date of filing of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.