Appellate Litigation at its Worst

In NC State Bar v. Burford, found here, the Court reminded the parties that in order to submit issues for review, it is generally helpful to file a brief.  The opinion is found here: LINK

As Abraham Lincoln once opined, “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”  In this appeal of an order of discipline of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission (“DHC”) of the North Carolina State Bar (“the Bar”), the petitioner, Robert J. Burford undertook the task of representing himself.  According to the Court of Appeals, “Mr. Burford, however, failed to include in his brief any substantive argument as to why there was error.”  His contentions were therefore abandoned. 

The Bar also appealed, argued that the DHC erred in certain findings of fact.  The Bar, however, did not file an appellant’s brief, but rather, “attempted to argue its contentions within its appellee’s brief."  The Bar’s contentions were therefore not properly before the Court.  

As such, the Court did not reach the merits of either appeal.  It did not stop them, however, from pointing out findings of fact related to Mr. Burford’s over-charging clients for both fees and expenses, and admonishing him for filing an appellate brief that was little more than a table of contents.  

The only person that should be happy with this appeal was the clerk tasked with writing it, as it no doubt made for short work and hopefully an early departure.  

Mess with a bull, you get the horns

The Court of Appeals recently affirmed Rule 11 sanctions against an attorney that, according to the Court, filed a motion to recuse a district court judge that was factually inaccurate.  In the case of O'Neal v. Oneal, an action for divorce, an attorney for the plaintiff failed to appear at a pre-trial conference. 

Although the plaintiff was represented by counsel at the pre-trial hearing, Rule 7.1 of the Family Court Domestic Rules for Judicial District 3A states, in part, that "[a]ttendance at pre-trial conferences is mandatory for all attorneys of record and all parties." 

The district court judge, upon noticing one of the attorneys' absence from the hearing, admonished the lawyer for her failure to appear.  The lawyer countered with a motion to recuse the judge, which was not met kindly by the district court. 

The district court, sighting the above local rule, noted that the attorney had failed to appear despite having actual knowledge that her attendance was required.  The reason given for missing the hearing? The attorney was meeting a contractor to have work done at her house.  In her motion to recuse, however, the attorney argued that her absence was acceptable because the plaintiff was represented by a licensed attorney.  No reference to the local rule was made. 

Not surprisingly, the attorney's "reason" for missing the hearing didn't sit well with either court, especially when the attorney was aware that her attendance was required.  As a result, the imposition of sanctions were affirmed on the basis that the motion to recuse contained an inaccurate recitation of facts.  

Today's picture is a personal favorite: