Rule 11 and the art of deterring frivolous lawsuits

Both former president Donald J. Trump and Arizona gubernatorial-candidate Kari Lake have been sanctioned for pursuing baseless litigation. Their lawsuits have been called “political grievances masquerading as legal claims.”

In 2016, former president Donald J. Trump defeated Hilary Clinton to become the 45th President of the United States. Unsatisfied with the victory, Trump filed a $70 million lawsuit against Clinton and numerous other defendants in the Southern District of Florida (Trump v. Clinton, et al., 2022 WL 4119433).

The complaint alleged that “the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hope of destroying his life, his political career, and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” The complaint ran 193 pages and contained a 16-count hodgepodge of legal claims.

On Sept. 8, 2022, District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint “with prejudice,” which prevents Trump from refiling the case. He found that it “should never have been brought.” Among the many defects, Middlebrooks found the pleading “replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material” and that were “buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies.” He also held that the legal theories “have no reasonable chance of success and cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing law.”

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a federal district court may impose sanctions for pleadings submitted for an improper purpose, or contain frivolous arguments, or that have no evidentiary support. A federal court may impose a sanction on “any attorney, law firm, or party” responsible for violating Rule 11(c).

The central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings. When an improper purpose exists, the sanction may require a monetary payment to those injured by the violation, including attorney’s fees and costs. A court also has the power to impose sanctions under an attorney’s liability for excessive costs (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927), the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1836, et seq.), and the court’s inherent power.

In November, the legal fortunes of Trump and his legal team took a turn for the worse when the court granted the motion for sanctions (2022 WL 16848187). The court labeled Trump a “mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process.” He noted that Trump repeatedly uses the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries, and one who does not blindly follow the advice of his lawyers. As a result, on Jan. 19, 2023, Middlebrooks granted joint and several liability sanctions in the amount of $937,989.39 against Trump and his lead attorneys (Alina Hubba and Hubba Madaio Associates).

Trump dropped two lawsuits against New York Attorney General Letitia James after the almost $1 million sanction. The claim by his legal team that the litigation was dismissed for “strategic reasons” is suspect. The more likely reason is the possible exposure to sanctions.

In December 2022, Federal Judge John J. Tuchi dismissed plaintiffs’ Arizona midterm-election case and imposed sanctions under Rule 11 and Section 1927 (Lake v. Hobbs, 2022 WL 17351715). Arizona gubernatorial-candidate Kari Lake and other plaintiffs challenged the procedures for administering elections and sought to compel the use of alternate procedures for the 2022 midterm.

Tuchi found that plaintiffs made false allegations, asserted untenable and unsupported claims for relief, and brought the case for an improper purpose. Thus, he imposed sanctions for attorney’s fees for “unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings” and being “factually baseless.”

To be clear, Rule 11 is not intended to foreclose zealous legal arguments for the extension, modifications, or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law. Sanctions are simply one way to prevent the abuse of the legal system for improper purposes, such as settling political grievances, harassing, delaying, or needlessly increasing the cost of litigation through frivolous arguments, or without evidentiary support.

Judicial sanctions are an important guardrail to protect the rule of law, which is the foundation of American democracy, and have an important role in dealing with abusive litigation tactics. The sanctions against Trump and Lake were appropriately based on the facts and the law.