Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. BrunswickAssocs. Ltd. P'ship , 507 U.S. 380, 392, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (footnote omitted) (quoting 4A C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1165, at 479 (2d ed. 1987) ). For example, one year after Farrell , we held in Rill v. State, Department of Highways , 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983), that Rule 60(b)(1) could not apply when an attorney's neglect was inexcusable. Justice Rabinowitz in dissent argued for a more expansive definition of "excusable neglect," but he did not suggest that inexcusable neglect could be grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1), even to avoid injustice.
Patricia argues that relief from judgment under [Civil Rule 60(b)(1)] is inappropriate because Jay's attorney's conduct did not constitute "excusable neglect." We agree. As this court stated in Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways, 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983), "[a]n attorney's failure to act responsibly toward his or her clients when the attorney could be expected to do so constitutes inexcusable neglect." The Rill court noted that the client's appropriate remedy is an action for malpractice. Rill, 669 P.2d at 576 n. 1. As commentators have noted, "[o]utside the default setting, negligent errors of counsel are treated less sympathetically and relief frequently denied on the grounds that the negligent act was inexcusable.
We have stressed, though, that to gain relief for excusable neglect a party must show not only "neglect," but a valid "excuse" therefor. See Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways, 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983). We also note that a leading commentator heads its discussion of federal Rule 60(b)(1) with the maxim: "deliberate . . . conduct is never mistake or excusable neglect.
We agree. As this court stated in Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways, 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983), "[a]n attorney's failure to act responsibly toward his or her clients when the attorney could be expected to do so constitutes inexcusable neglect." The Rill court noted that the client's appropriate remedy is an action for malpractice.
. Dickerson v. Williams, 956 P.2d 458, 465 (Alaska 1998) (citing Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways, 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983)). Sandberg v. Sandberg, 322 P.3d 879, 887 (Alaska 2014) (alteration omitted) (quoting Dickerson, 956 P.2d at 465).
O'Link v. O'Link , 632 P.2d 225, 229-30 (Alaska 1981).Dickerson v. Williams , 956 P.2d 458, 465 (Alaska 1998) (citing Rill v. State, Dep't of Highways , 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983) ).Second, Rule 60(b)(3)"is aimed at judgments which were unfairly obtained, not at those that are factually incorrect.
Coppe does allege that her trial attorney failed to inform her of the deadlines for filing an appeal before he withdrew from the case; however, this court has already rejected Coppe's request for leave to file a late appeal. 669 P.2d 573, 576 (Alaska 1983).Id. at 574-76.