- 34 -
Model Rules and, thus, has intentionally abused the judicial
process. If by that conduct he has multiplied the proceedings,
he is deserving of sanctions for unreasonably and vexatiously
multiplying the proceedings within the meaning of section
6673(a)(2). See Red Carpet Studios Div. of Source Advantage,
Ltd. v. Sater, supra.
4. Multiplication of the Proceedings
These proceedings should never have been brought. All of
respondent’s costs are, thus, in a sense, excessive. There is,
however, some disagreement among the Courts of Appeals in
interpreting 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927 as to whether it is only
possible to multiply, or prolong, the proceedings after a case
has been initiated; presumably because an attorney cannot begin
to multiply the proceedings until some proceeding has come into
existence for the attorney to multiply. Compare Moore v. Keegan
Mgmt. Co., 78 F.3d 431, 435 (9th Cir. 1996) (28 U.S.C. sec. 1927
“applies only to unnecessary filings and tactics once a lawsuit
has begun”), with In re TCI Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 448 (7th Cir.
1985) (under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927, trial judge “had the authority
to award the fees incurred right from the beginning”). We have
not addressed the analogous issue under section 6673(a)(2), and
we are not compelled to do so today since, with respect to
respondent’s costs incurred in responding to the first pleadings
(i.e., answering the petitions), there is adequate basis under
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007