Loading...
A Chicago lawyer, Calvita Frederick, is at the center of a legal controversy and potential disciplinary action after attacking a judge’s rulings and her opponent’s opening statement in a complaint seeking 27 separate declaratory judgments. U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the Northern District of Illinois recently sanctioned Frederick in a decision on June 22. The ruling required her to pay the legal costs incurred by her litigation opponents and referred her to the federal court’s executive committee for potential disciplinary measures.
The lawsuit that sparked this chain of events involved a discrimination suit filed by Frederick on behalf of Michael Outley against the city of Chicago. U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman, who presided over the case, had previously referred Frederick to the executive committee after criticizing her performance as the “poorest” he had witnessed in his over 12-year tenure. Feinerman’s referral to the committee was a consequence of Frederick’s conduct and his concerns about her behavior.
Following the referral, Frederick filed a declaratory judgment suit, naming Feinerman and several individual Chicago defendants as defendants. The suit sought declaratory judgments challenging Feinerman’s evidentiary rulings in the Outley case, alleging incorrectness, as well as claiming that he wrongly denied her mistrial motion and refused to exclude specific testimony. Mistrial motions were also filed against individual Chicago defendants for introducing disputed evidence during opening statements.
In a subsequent decision, Judge Durkin found Frederick’s declaratory judgment suit to lack any legal basis. He emphasized that Frederick, as an experienced federal court litigator, should have known that suing a district court judge was not the appropriate way to challenge evidentiary rulings. Durkin criticized her for not pursuing an appeal instead. He stated that her actions were “incomprehensible” and that the proper course of action would have been to file an appeal, given her experience and familiarity with federal court procedures.
Time to fill a position? BCG Attorney Search can help you find the perfect candidate.
Judge Feinerman had previously dismissed Outley’s discrimination suit as a sanction for Frederick’s behavior. He highlighted multiple issues with her conduct, including attempting to file evidentiary motions after the deadline, making inappropriate remarks during a pretrial conference, and failing to read a court order, leading her to misunderstand the status of her opponents’ motions in limine. One of her comments during the proceedings was particularly deemed “intemperate,” referencing lawyers getting “ripped a new butthole” when seeking additional time.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
It’s worth noting that Feinerman has since left the bench and joined the law firm Latham & Watkins. However, the repercussions of Frederick’s actions remained. The Chicago defendants targeted in her declaratory judgment suit requested sanctions against her. In response, Frederick acknowledged her mistake and stated that she now understood the proper process for challenging court decisions through an appeal.
Judge Durkin concluded that Frederick’s claims were consistently frivolous and baseless. He highlighted that each request for relief in her suit would have required his court to review and override the rulings of another presiding district judge in a pending case. Stressing that a federal district judge lacks such authority, Durkin emphasized the improper nature of Frederick’s lawsuit. He also considered it a bad faith filing, referring to Feinerman’s prior warning that the suit lacked merit and misused the declaratory judgment statute. Feinerman had advised Frederick that if she disagreed with his decisions, she should pursue an appeal, which is the established avenue for such challenges.
Durkin further justified imposing sanctions on Frederick, pointing out her extensive history of similar litigation misconduct and prior instances of being warned and sanctioned. Even pro se litigants, who represent themselves in court without legal representation, have faced sanctions for similar behavior.
When contacted for comment, Frederick declined to provide any response.
This case serves as a cautionary tale highlighting the importance of professional conduct and adherence to legal procedures. It demonstrates the potential consequences that lawyers may face when disregarding proper channels for challenging court decisions and engaging in inappropriate behavior during proceedings.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
