Client Had No Clear Notice Of A Violation.
Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, regrettably, had to author a 4/3 DCA opinion on a $5,771.25 sanctions award against plaintiff and her attorney relating to a dispute on whether a local pre-trial issues conference had to be held in-person or remotely. (The trial court concluded that plaintiff was unreasonable in not engaging in a remote versus in-person issues conference.) Ultimately, our local Santa Ana appellate court in Sanson v. Sanson, Case No. G060976 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 3, 2023) (unpublished), affirmed the award against the attorney but reversed the award against the client.
Many of the problems related to the attorney, raising new safe harbor protection arguments on appeal which were likely waived but also dismissed on the merits—given that the safe harbor rule did not apply to a failure to engage in a pre-trial issues conference. The trial court’s OSC re sanctions only referenced the attorney, not the client, which did require a versal of the sanctions order as to plaintiff.
We would guess that a possible moral of this story is that attorneys need to work out in-person versus remote conferences and appearances, post-COVID. Remote appearances are still in vogue, based on co-contributor Mike’s experiences.