Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Section 1927 Sanctions Do Not Require Bad Faith in Sixth Circuit — Sufficient If Lawyer Knows or Should Know That Claim Is Frivolous or That Litigation Tactics Will Needlessly Obstruct the Litigation of Nonfrivolous Claims

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2620 (6th Cir. Feb. 20, 2015):

[A] court may sanction an attorney under § 1927 for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings even in the absence of any "conscious impropriety." Rentz v. Dynasty Apparel Indus., Inc., 556 F.3d 389, 396 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The proper inquiry is not whether an attorney acted in bad faith; rather, a court should consider whether "an attorney knows or reasonably should know that a claim pursued is frivolous, or that his or her litigation tactics will needlessly obstruct the litigation of nonfrivolous claims."

Hall v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 595 F.3d 270, 275-76 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

Share this article:


Recent Posts