In re: Martin v. ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
In re: C. RABON MARTIN, No. 00-5035
(D.C. No. 00-AP-1-H)
Appellant. (N.D. Okla.)
ORDER
Filed October 12, 2000
Before BRORBY, PORFILIO, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on appellant’s motion to correct our order
and judgment dated September 18, 2000. The motion is granted. A copy of the
amended order and judgment, with a corrected footnote three, is attached.
Entered for the Court
Patrick Fisher, Clerk of Court
By:
Keith Nelson
Deputy Clerk
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
In re: C. RABON MARTIN,
No. 00-5035
Appellant. (D.C. No. 00-AP-1-H)
(N.D. Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, PORFILIO, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant C. Rabon Martin, an attorney, appeals from an order of the
district court imposing sanctions on him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We
reverse.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Mr. Martin was retained to represent Albert Pike Ballew, who was facing
criminal charges in federal court. After consulting with Mr. Martin, Mr. Ballew
entered a guilty plea to a drug count in exchange for the government’s agreement
to dismiss a gun count that would have added five years to his sentence.
Mr. Martin was present at the plea hearing but did not appear at
sentencing. At sentencing, Mr. Ballew complained about Mr. Martin’s
representation. He stated that Mr. Martin had underestimated the sentencing
guidelines and that he would not have pled guilty had he known he was facing
thirty years’ imprisonment on the charges. The court permitted Mr. Ballew to
withdraw his plea 1
and, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 2 discharged Mr. Martin from the
case. The court further ordered Mr. Martin to return all monies he had been paid
within ten days of the hearing, seven days of the filing of the written order.
1
Mr. Ballew later reentered his guilty plea and was sentenced to 312 months.
2
An attorney becomes subject to § 1927 sanctions “by acting
recklessly or with indifference to the law, as well as by acting in the
teeth of what he knows to be the law. . . . Section 1927 permits a
court to insist that the attorney bear the costs of his own lack of
care.”
Braley v. Campbell , 832 F.2d 1504, 1511 (10th Cir. 19 87) (quoting In re TCI
Ltd. , 769 F.2d 441, 445 (7th Cir. 1985)). Mr. Martin contends that the court did
not have the power under § 1927 to order him to reimburse all funds received.
We need not address whether the sanction was properly imposed pursuant to
§ 1927 or under the court’s inherent “far-reaching and potentially drastic
contempt and disciplinary powers.” Id. at 1510 n.5.
-2-
Mr. Martin failed to return the funds as ordered by the court. The court
then referred the matter to a three magistrate judge en banc panel to conduct a
hearing for the purpose of determining whether Mr. Martin should be held in
civil contempt for failing to comply with the sanctions order. Mr. Martin filed an
objection to the sanctions order and requested an opportunity to be heard with
regard to the imposition of sanctions. The court referred Mr. Martin’s motion to
the en banc panel.
Following the hearing, the court entered an order holding Mr. Martin in
contempt of court. The court continued its order that Mr. Martin disgorge all
funds received from Mr. Ballew’s mother and further prohibited Mr. Martin and
his firm from representing any new clients before the district court until
Mr. Martin had complied with the original sanction. 3
The court held that
Mr. Martin had received all the process due him as he had had a hearing before
the en banc panel.
On appeal, Mr. Martin argues that the district court violated his due
process rights as the sanctions were imposed without notice and a hearing. He
notes that his failure to appear in court at his client’s sentencing was due to
medical reasons. He contends the court abused its discretion in entering the
3
Mr. Martin has also been suspended for a minimum of two years by the
Chief Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
-3-
order based solely on Mr. Ballew’s allegation that Mr. Martin had incorrectly
advised him as to the possible guideline range. Mr. Martin maintains that, as his
representation did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, no sanctions
could be ordered. Mr. Martin posits that the court abused its discretion in
banishing his employees from accepting employment in the district until the
sanction is paid. Lastly, Mr. Martin states that because he could not disgorge the
funds, the court abused its discretion in finding him in civil contempt. As we
resolve this appeal based on Mr. Martin’s first argument, we do not address his
remaining issues.
It is a venerable principle in our law that “the power of the
court should never be exercised without notice to the offending party
of the grounds of complaint against him, and affording him ample
opportunity of explanation and defense. This is a rule of natural
justice, and is as applicable to cases where a proceeding is taken to
reach the right of an attorney to practice his profession as it is when
the proceeding is taken to reach his real or personal property.”
Braley , 832 F.2d at 1514 (quoting Bradley v. Fisher , 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335,
354-55 (1871)); cf. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper , 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980)
(“Like other sanctions, attorney’s fees certainly should not be assessed lightly or
without fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record.”).
Thus, while
[d]ue process is a flexible concept, and the particular procedural
protections vary, depending upon all the circumstances, [t]he basic
requirements of due process with respect to the assessment of costs,
-4-
expenses, or attorney’s fees are notice that such sanctions are being
considered by the court and a subsequent opportunity to respond.
Braley , 832 F.2d at 1514 (citations omitted).
When a court imposes sanctions sua sponte, “due process is satisfied by
issuance of an order to show cause why a sanction should not be imposed and by
providing a reasonable opportunity for filing a response.” Id. at 1515. After
considering the reasons the attorney proffers to justify his actions, the court may
enter an order memorializing its decision to reject or impose sanctions. See id. ;
cf. Johnson v. Waddell & Reed, Inc. , 74 F.3d 147, 151 (7th Cir. 1996) (a court’s
decision to give counsel an after-the-fact opportunity to convince it to set aside an
order imposing sanctions “complies with neither the letter nor the spirit of”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11).
The only exception to this general rule may be for extreme misconduct
occurring in open court, in the presence of the judge. See In re Ruffalo , 390 U.S.
544, 550 (1968); but see Ex parte Robinson , 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 505, 512-13
(1873) (cases may exist showing such gross and outrageous conduct in open court
as to justify very summary proceedings for an attorney’s suspension or removal
from office, “but even then he should be heard before he is condemned”).
Here, Mr. Martin was not before the court when the sanctions were
imposed. He had no notice and no opportunity for a hearing until after the order
was entered. Further, he had no real after-the-fact hearing as that hearing was
-5-
primarily concerned with obtaining facts so the court could determine whether to
hold Mr. Martin in contempt for failing to comply with the original order.
Mr. Martin did not receive the process to which he was entitled. 4
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is REVERSED and the award of sanctions is VACATED. The
matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
4
Our review of the record discloses no factual support for the reasoning
employed by the district court in imposing sanctions. To the contrary, it fully
appears a pre-sanction hearing would have provided the court with ample
explanations of Mr. Martin’s actions, and thus made clear to the court sanctions
were not warranted.
-6-