Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealcorporationlegal ethicscivil procedure
attorneyappealaffidavitcorporation

Related Cases

Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield, 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 282 Cal.Rptr. 627
View Case »
Gibson v. Trant, 58 S.W.3d 103
View Case »
Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 93 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1519, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1659
View Case »
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 54 USLW 4006
View Case »
Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 42 Media L. Rep. 1033
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Disciplinary Action Curl, 803 F.2d 1004, 10 Fed.R.Serv.3d 822

Facts

David L. Curl represented Johnny E. Henry in a case involving a drilling rig and water tank truck purchased from Wes-Tex Equipment Company, which was later assigned to International Harvester Credit Corporation (Harvester). After defaulting on payments, Henry misled the Mexican court by claiming he had paid in full, resulting in a favorable judgment for him. Curl, believing Henry's claims and misinterpretations from Mexican attorneys, presented this mischaracterization in his appeal, which led to the court's scrutiny of his conduct.

On July 22, 1986, this court issued an order to David L. Curl that he show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him for a misrepresentation made by him as counsel for Johnny E. Henry in the case of International Harvester Credit Corporation (Harvester) v. Henry, decided by this court July 22, 1986.

Issue

Did attorney David L. Curl engage in professional misconduct by misrepresenting the facts of a Mexican judgment during an appeal?

Did attorney David L. Curl engage in professional misconduct by misrepresenting the facts of a Mexican judgment during an appeal?

Rule

Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an attorney's signature certifies that the filing is well-grounded in fact and that reasonable inquiry has been made. If not, the court is mandated to impose sanctions.

Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P. prescribes that 'the signature of an attorney' constitutes 'a certificate by him' that to the 'best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry,' the paper he is filing with the court is 'well grounded in fact.'

Analysis

The court determined that Curl's appeal was based on a mischaracterization of the Mexican judgment, which he presented as a fact without acknowledging its ambiguity. Despite Curl's claims of being misled by his client and Mexican attorneys, the court found that he failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the judgment's meaning. His reliance on unreliable sources and his own misinterpretation constituted professional irresponsibility.

Curl misrepresented the judgment on which his appeal depended. If we accept his affidavit, he did so in part because of statements made to him by his client, Henry. Curl had no reason to believe Henry, an oil driller, on a matter of law. Henry's basic story, that he had paid Harvester, was disbelieved by the jury in this case, and was wholly implausible.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Curl's conduct warranted sanctions, specifically a public admonishment, due to his failure to uphold the standards of legal ethics and his duty to the court.

A majority of this court believes the public admonishment of this opinion is sufficient sanction.

Who won?

International Harvester Credit Corporation prevailed as the court found Curl's appeal to be baseless and imposed sanctions on him for his misrepresentations.

The court found that Curl's appeal was based on a mischaracterization of the Mexican judgment, which he presented as a fact without acknowledging its ambiguity.

You must be