New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

Download PDF

United States v. Whigham, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24014 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024):

***

Whigham complains that Ganguli refused to file the brief that Whigham himself drafted. But that's not a good cause for substituting Ganguli. [*4]  Quite the opposite: Ganguli did the right thing by refusing to file a document drafted by his client. HN2[] "[P]arties represented by counsel may not file pro se briefs."1 United States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570, 579 (3d Cir. 2012). Indeed, if Ganguli had submitted the brief his client drafted, it might have amounted to professional misconduct. See, e.g., In re Sobolevsky, 430 F. App'x 9, 10 (2d Cir. 2011) (counting the "filing of pleadings drafted by non-lawyers" as among the "particularly disturb[ing]" actions of an attorney that warranted sanctions).

At bottom, attorneys are responsible for the contents of the documents they submit to a court. For example, Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that whenever an attorney submits a "pleading, written motion, or other paper" to the court, the attorney "certif[y]" that to the best of his knowledge, all legal contentions are non-frivolous and all factual contentions are likely to have evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (allowing courts to sanction attorneys for violating Rule 11(b)). And Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides detailed instructions for drafting appellate briefs. Because Ganguli was required to ensure that his submission to this court complied with professional standards, he was justified in refusing to file the brief that Whigham drafted. Thus, Whigham lacks good cause to substitute Ganguli.

1 An exception applies when a litigant challenges court-appointed counsel's decision to withdraw from the representation because of counsel's belief that the grounds for appeal are frivolous. United States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570, 579 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967)). But that exception isn't relevant here. The brief that Whigham asked Ganguli to file wasn't an Anders brief; it was his merits brief on appeal.

***

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

Rule 37 Sanctions — Contempt for Ignoring Orders Compelling Discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) — Contempt Factors (Second Circuit) — Sanctions Mandatory Unless Failure to Comply Substantially Justified or Award Would Be Unjust — No Due Process Violation Even Though Target Not Given An Opportunity to Be Heard Before Sanctions Granted Where (1) Target Knew Court Invited Fee Application, (2) Target Had 11 Days to Object or Respond Before Fees Issued, and (3) Court Thoroughly Considered Motion to Reconsider

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Second Circuit Generally Requires “Blatant Frivolity, Bad Faith, or Repetitive Filings” Before It Will Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions

“The Meaning Of Language Lies In How An Audience Understands [The] Words” (Good Quote)

Rule 11 Sanctions — Successful Dershowitz Appeal in Election Case — (1) Ninth Circuit Splits with Sixth Holding (2-1) All Signers of a Court Paper Are Liable for Everything in It, Even If They Can Prove They Had No Role in the Sanctionable Portions (Ed. Ques.: (i) How Did They “Violate[] The Rule” (Rule 11(c)(2))? (ii) Why Does Reasonableness Require Every Lawyer to Read Every Allegation? (iii) Why Can’t They Or Their Clients Allocate Work? (iv) How Are Limited-Role, Innocent Lawyers “Responsible for the Violation” (Rule 11(c)(2))?)) — (2) Goodyear v. Haeger Doesn’t Allow Innocent Lawyers to Prove They Did Not Cause Any Damages (Ed.: Majority Conflates Basis for Seeking Fees with Defense to Fees) — (3) From Concurrence: Duties of Local Counsel (n. 3)

Rule 11 and § 1927 Sanctions — Jurisdiction to Sanction Survives Demise of Case — Rule 11 Sanctions Require Both a Baseless Pleading And an Unreasonable Inquiry (The Latter of Which May Be Inferable from the Former) — Amount of Time Available Affects Analysis of What Investigation Is Reasonable — Meaning of “Bad Faith” for § 1927 Sanctions in Ninth Circuit

Today Is The 24th Anniversary Of The Firm

RICO Person vs. Enterprise: Subsidiary in Typical Corporate Structure Does Not Control Parent And Therefore Does Not Conduct Parent’s Affairs

Patently Frivolous RICO Complaint Fails to Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction — Subject to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice