Brian G. Takaba - Page 23




                                       - 23 -                                         
               By the time of the September 12 letter and the status                  
          report, Mr. Sulla had ample time to review petitioner’s initial             
          arguments.  We believe from Mr. Sulla’s statements in the                   
          surreply that he knew those arguments were frivolous but, in                
          order to gain a tactical advantage, did not disclaim them.  Thus,           
          Mr. Sulla knowingly maintained petitioner’s frivolous arguments,            
          and that constitutes bad faith.5                                            
                    b.  The 861 Argument                                              
               Moreover, we believe that Mr. Sulla was reckless in making             
          the 861 argument.  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has           
          not defined the term “reckless” for purposes of determining                 
          whether an attorney acts in bad faith by recklessly making a                


               5  Mr. Sulla’s conduct with respect to petitioner’s initial            
          arguments (and, indeed, the 861 argument) also raises questions             
          under the Rules.  Rule 201(a) requires practitioners to carry on            
          their practice in accordance with letter and spirit of the Model            
          Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association               
          (the Model Rules).  In pertinent part, Model Rule 3.1 states: “A            
          lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or                 
          controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and             
          fact for doing so that is not frivolous”.  Model Rule 3.2                   
          requires a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite                    
          litigation.  Model Rule 3.3 imposes on lawyers a duty of candor             
          towards the tribunal, which includes the requirement that a                 
          lawyer not knowingly make a false statement of law to the                   
          tribunal.  A comment following Model Rule 3.3 states:  “Legal               
          argument based on a knowingly false representation of law                   
          constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal.”  We question whether           
          Mr. Sulla’s “negotiating posture” and his apparent advice to                
          petitioner that he “reserve” his initial arguments violate Model            
          Rules 3.1 and 3.2.  We also question whether Mr. Sulla breached             
          his duty of candor to the Court when, in the status report, he              
          reported that petitioner would not waive or withdraw arguments              
          that Mr. Sulla knew to be frivolous and was maintaining only to             
          gain some negotiating advantage.                                            





Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011