Most cases settle. Most cases should settle and “settlement” is not a dirty word.
Court, despite preparations, always has a level of unpredictability. Witnesses who you thought would be great, are nervous and are not great. Evidence that you knew was significant was prevented from being used due to an objection. What you believed to be the facts morphed into something else because of other testimony.
The judge was cranky. The air conditioner broke. Your lawyer forgot to ask you a question.
Settlement eliminates the risk and unpredictability of Court. Also, you just may get the outcome you would have gotten without the stress, anxiety and burning bridges that sometimes comes with contested litigation.
Sometimes settling your case is the way to go.
Matthew Thompson is a litigation attorney in Mississippi and still advises that sometimes settlement is best.
(b) Sanctions…For wilful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted. If any party files a motion or pleading which, in the opinion of the court, is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay, the court may order such a party, or his attorney, or both, to pay to the opposing party or parties the reasonable expenses incurred by such other parties and by their attorneys, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. [Amended effective March 13, 1991; amended effective January 16, 2003] M.R.C.P 11
Rule 11 provides two alternative grounds for the imposition of sanctions—the filing of a frivolous motion or pleading, and the filing of a motion or pleading for the purpose of harassment or delay. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 553 So. 2d 1117, 1120 (Miss. 1989). M.R.C.P 11
Although a finding of bad faith is necessary to sustain the imposition of sanctions based on purposeful harassment or delay, a finding of bad faith is not necessary to sustain the imposition of sanctions based upon frivolous pleadings or motions. M.R.C.P. 11.
A pleading is “frivolous” if its “insufficiency…is so manifest upon a bare inspection of the pleadings, that the court or judge is able to determine its character without argument or research.” In re Estate of Smith, 69 So. 3d 1, 6 (Miss. 2011). M.R.C.P 11
Sanctions against a party are improper in cases where the party relied strictly on advice of counsel and could not be expected to know whether the complaint was supported by law, where the party relied on advice of counsel in filing the pleading and played no significant role in prosecution of the action; or where the party was unaware and lacked responsibility for any bad faith harassment or delay. See Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1184 (Miss. 1993). M.R.C.P 11
Let Rule 11 serve as a warning against filing things you know are untrue and/or that you cannot prove.
Matthew Thompson is a Chancery Court attorney in Mississippi and doesn’t often seek sanctions, but does when it’s warranted.
There is now a rule regarding the number of times you may take the bar exam unsuccessfully before remedial education is mandatory. Upon 3 unsuccessful attempts, a test-taker must attend 12 additional hours of law school before sitting for the bar exam again.
Previously there was no set limit. Two Supreme Court Justices disagreed with the rule change, but not because it was too tough. One justice was in favor of a 3-strikes your’re out and another supported 5-strikes and you’re out.
There have been mixed responses to this rule change and the above link features area attorney’s reactions, including your truly.
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law attorney in Mississippi, passed the bar exam on his first attempt and if all goes to plan will not have to take another bar exam – – ever…