There will, optimistically, never be occasion for citing this case, but, if needed, Amadasu v. General Revenue Corp., stands for the proposition that presenting forged documents to the court warrants dismissal. Note that the offender was the client, who suffered the sanction, even though the documents were initially proffered to the court by his counsel, who later withdrew. Note also that the client was found to be a recidivist:

Magistrate Judge Hogan found, after having an evidentiary hearing, that Plaintiff attached exhibits to his complaint that were forged by Plaintiff.... Although the complaint was initially filed by an attorney, Plaintiff provided the documents to his counsel and then later, after his counsel withdrew, advocated that those forged documents entitled him to summary judgment, or in the alternative, provided an issue of fact that mandated that GRC's motion for summary judgment be denied. ***

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hogan that monetary sanctions would be insufficient to deter Plaintiff. Additionally, the Court has grave concerns regarding Plaintiff's propensity to forge or alter documents in the future as it is clear that this is not the first time Plaintiff has done so in this Court. (See Amadasu v. Donovan, et al, Case No. 1:01cv210-SJD-TSB, Doc. 137 (finding Plaintiff had forged correspondence allegedly written by the Defendants) and Amadasu v. Macharet, et al., Case No. 1:02cv263-SJD-TSB, Doc. 88 (finding Plaintiff's intentional misrepresentations on the record to the Court constituted support for recommending dismissal)). In cases of serious misconduct, dismissal is an appropriate sanction under Rule 11. See Jimenez v. Madison Area Technical College, 321 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2003); Peerless Indus. Paint Coatings Co. v. Canam Steel Corp., 979 F.2d 685 (8th Cir. 1992).