Clement v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 537, 198 F.R.D. 634, 49 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 793 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2), an attorney has an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and applicable law before filing a pleading, and a failure to do so, such as by relying on a form complaint without independent research, constitutes a sanctionable violation.
Facts:
- Attorney Lorraine Harris filed a complaint on behalf of her client, Clement, against Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G).
- The complaint alleged a claim under Title VII's 'Opposition Clause,' despite Clement not being an employee of PSE&G, a necessary element for such a claim.
- Harris admitted to drafting this claim by copying a form from a practice manual, believing it applied because the alleged conduct occurred on PSE&G's premises.
- Harris failed to file a mandatory prerequisite charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing the Title VII action.
- As an excuse for not filing with the EEOC, Harris claimed the requirement was not in the text of the specific statutory clause she cited and that the full annotated statute was hundreds of pages long.
- The complaint also included a Section 1983 claim, for which Harris admitted she did not fully understand the 'state action' requirement and based the claim on a vague recollection of a case and a report she could not identify.
Procedural Posture:
- Clement, represented by attorney Lorraine Harris, filed a complaint against Public Service Electric and Gas Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
- The District Court then issued an Order directing attorney Harris to show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) by filing a complaint based on a form from a practice manual without conducting an independent, reasonable inquiry into the applicable facts and law of the specific case?
Opinions:
Majority - Orlofsky, District Judge
Yes. An attorney violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts before filing a complaint. The court found that Harris's conduct was not reasonable under the circumstances. Rule 11 requires lawyers to exercise independent professional judgment, not to act as 'automatons' by merely copying form complaints from practice manuals without verifying their applicability. Harris's failure to recognize that her client was not a PSE&G employee, a fact fatal to the Title VII claim, and her admitted ignorance of the EEOC filing prerequisite and the 'state action' doctrine, demonstrated a complete failure to conduct even a 'rudimentary pre-complaint investigation.' The court characterized her excuses as 'mind-boggling' and found that her reliance on a form book, rather than independent research, was a clear violation of her professional obligations under Rule 11.
Analysis:
This opinion serves as a stark reminder of the affirmative duties imposed on attorneys by Rule 11. It clarifies that the 'reasonable inquiry' standard is objective and cannot be satisfied by a subjective good-faith belief or by blindly relying on practice manuals. The decision emphasizes that courts will not tolerate an 'empty-head pure-heart' defense for filing legally baseless claims. The imposition of non-monetary sanctions, such as mandatory legal education and referral to the ethics board, highlights that Rule 11's purpose is not merely punitive but also aims to deter future misconduct and improve the quality of legal practice.
Unlock the full brief for Clement v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.