In Re Attorney Lori E. LIGHTFOOT
217 F.3d 914, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22912, 2000 WL 669837 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney, particularly a government attorney, engages in professional misconduct by filing a misleading motion that creates a false impression of their intentions through a 'pregnant omission,' thereby causing a court to lose jurisdiction over a matter. Reliance on a superior's unreasonable advice is not a defense for misleading a court.
Facts:
- Lars Lindstrom was scheduled to be extradited to Norway, with a flight departing at 5:00 p.m.
- At approximately 1:00 p.m., U.S. Marshals transferred custody of Lindstrom to two Norwegian policemen in the garage of the federal courthouse.
- The U.S. Marshal then drove Lindstrom and the Norwegian officers to O'Hare Airport.
- At 2:20 p.m., Lindstrom's lawyer obtained an emergency stay of extradition from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Lori Lightfoot, representing the government, was notified of the stay at 2:55 p.m.
- Lightfoot's superiors advised her that the extradition had already legally occurred in the garage and that the court's stay order was therefore moot.
- At 4:40 p.m., Lightfoot filed a motion asking the court to 'lift' the stay, citing the frivolity of Lindstrom's appeal and his imminent departure.
- The motion failed to disclose the government's internal position that it considered the stay ineffective and intended to allow Lindstrom's departure regardless of the court's ruling on the motion.
Procedural Posture:
- In a prior case, Lindstrom v. Graber, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found an appeal by Lars Lindstrom to be moot.
- At the conclusion of its opinion in Lindstrom, the court directed Assistant U.S. Attorney Lori Lightfoot to show cause why she should not be disciplined for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.
- Lightfoot submitted a brief in response to the order to show cause.
- The Department of Justice submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of Lightfoot.
- The court of appeals held an oral hearing on the disciplinary matter.
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 engage in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar by filing a motion that, while not containing an explicit falsehood, creates a misleading impression of the attorney's position and intentions, thereby causing a court to lose jurisdiction over a case?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge
Yes. An attorney engages in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar by filing a motion that misleads the court through a significant omission, causing the court to lose jurisdiction. The court distinguished between advocating an unreasonable legal position, which is not necessarily misconduct, and misleading the court through a 'pregnant omission.' Lightfoot's motion to 'lift' the stay created the thoroughly false impression that the government was honoring the stay and would prevent Lindstrom's departure unless the court acted. In reality, the government's position was that the stay was moot and had no effect. This lack of candor lulled the judge into believing the status quo was preserved, which prevented her from issuing a more explicit order to stop the flight, ultimately mooting Lindstrom's appeal. While mitigating factors—such as receiving misleading advice from superiors, the hurried nature of the filing, and an otherwise unblemished record—warranted a lesser sanction of a reprimand, the conduct itself was a violation of the duty of candor. The court held that reliance on a superior's order is only a defense when reasonable, and it is never reasonable to believe one is authorized to mislead a court.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces a lawyer's paramount duty of candor to the court, clarifying that this duty can be violated by misleading implications and strategic omissions, not just by overt falsehoods. The case establishes that reliance on a superior's unreasonable legal advice does not excuse an attorney's duty to be forthright with the tribunal. This precedent serves as a significant warning, especially to government attorneys, that hierarchical directives do not override fundamental professional ethics, and that courts will enforce the duty of candor to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
