Second District, Division 8 Gives a “Double Whammy.”
In line with suggestions we have made in prior posts, appellate practice in California is a specialty. Do not get involved and do not lightly appeal abuse of discretion rulings unless you consult an appellate specialist or have practiced before the California appellate courts. The next case is a stark reinforcement of the wisdom of these suggestions.
A contentious family law surrogacy dispute involved “parents” squabbling about numerous subjects, primarily centering about mother’s lifestyle, child’s support requirements, sperm donor’s (dad’s) child visitation rights, and overall paternity issues.
Dad’s attorney was hit with $5,000 in discovery sanctions after discovery was sent covering, among other things, subjects such as mother’s topless dancer, actress, and Internet bikinis enterprising activities. Dad’s attorney was miffed at these sanctions and appealed as objector.
Attorney lost both the merits and more in Abbot v. Kitts, Case No. B200824 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 7, 2009) (unpublished). The discovery sanctions were found justified by the appellate court. However, it went farther. The panel found that attorney’s appeal was frivolous under Code of Civil Procedure section 907, citing In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637, 650 (1982) [one of our Leading Cases] in support of the result. Mother was awarded an extra $23,343.75 for attorney’s frivolous appeal.
Quote of the Day—“ … an attorney is never justified in taking such wholly unmeritorious positions before the court, even if requested to do so by a client. It is the attorney, not the client, who is the professional occupying a trusted position as an officer of the court. He must resist the misguided or improper urgings of his vengeful, angry, or merely ignorant client.” (Bauer, J., sitting by assignment, on behalf of the 3-0 panel.)