State Supreme Court upholds sanctions against local attorney

By Michael Howell

The Montana Supreme Court last week upheld a decision by District Court Judge Jeffrey Langton to level sanctions against attorney Robert C. Myers for submitting unsupported legal and factual allegations and filings made for an improper use. Myers was ordered to pay $10,000 as a sanction for the violation.
The original case involved a parenting plan dispute in which Myers represented a man who was asking relief from his ex-wife’s amended parenting plan which the court had adopted. On March 5, 2014, Judge Langton denied the motion for relief and asked for briefing on possible Rule 11 violations and sanctions against Myers. On June 16, 2014, Langton found Myers to be in violation “in numerous ways,” including unsupported legal and factual allegations and filings made for an improper purpose and ordered the $10,000 in sanction fees.
The husband appealed the denial of his request for relief and Myers separately appealed the sanction order. The Supreme Court declined to combine the cases and they were considered separately.
The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that a district court retains the necessary flexibility to deal appropriately with violations of Rule 11 and has discretion to tailor sanctions to the particular facts of the case; and that the district court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the testimony offered in a Rule 11 proceeding. It also noted that there are two grounds for imposing sanctions: the ‘frivolous clause’, meant to cover pleadings not grounded in fact or law; and the ‘improper clause’, meant to cover pleadings filed for an improper purpose such as harassment, delay, or increasing the cost of litigation.
The Supreme Court found that Langton’s finding that Myers did not make reasonable inquiry into the facts in his pleadings “is not erroneous.” They found that, although some facts were supported by his client’s affidavits, the majority of the facts at issue were “Myers’ own unsupported factual contentions.” The court also found that on appeal, “Myers fails to cite any facts in the record to support a contrary finding.”
The Supreme Court notes that Myers claims that his arguments are based on existing law. “However, the District Court’s order provides numerous examples of Myers’ failure to follow the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure throughout the proceedings,” the Justices wrote.
As to the question of filing for an improper purpose, the Supreme Court states, “Our review of the record convinces us that the District Court’s determination that Myers’ ‘baseless, scathing factual contentions’ and use of ‘highly inflammatory language against opposing counsel, the children’s therapist, and the Court and its staff’ was for an improper purpose.”
Myers alleged that the children’s therapist intentionally lied, and he referred to her as “the H.I.V. virus tricking an immune cell into accepting the virus to its own detriment.” Myers also referred to the “lawlessness” of the proceedings in District Court, and asserted that his client “was tasked with the legal equivalent of doing an autopsy and investigation on a mutilated body in which an entire town had motive for the crime.”
The Supreme Court states, “Myers’ baseless factual contentions and use of inflammatory language has no place in our legal process and, standing alone, would justify sanctions.”
As to the amount of the sanctions, the Justices note that the District Court considered the degree of Myers’ conduct, the limited evidence of Myers’ financial resources presented to the court, and the minimal amount that would deter Myers from such conduct in the future. They emphasize that Myers presented no evidence of his inability to pay.
Myers also represented former Ravalli County Treasurer Valerie Stamey prior to her disappearance and made public statements on her behalf containing many allegations against individuals, the county commissioners and the court as well as language that could be considered “inflammatory.”