CARLOS GONZALEZ vs. SHAWN ROBERSON

Summary: Attorney Stephen Acker of Acker and Whipple represented the defendant. Plaintiff filed a sanctions motion against defendant and Acker & Whipple relating to discovery.

The judge ruled Acker's firm and his client both owed sanctions of $1685. Then Acker filed a motion asking not to be sanctioned, then got plaintiff's counsel to sign a stipulation agreeing only his client deserved to be sanctioned.



From the Judge:

The court granted a motion plaintiff filed against Stephen Acker's client relating to requests for admissions. As part of the ruling the judge said:

"Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendant and his attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, in the total amount of $1685, within twenty days."

Mr. Acker then sought an order vacating the attorney sanctions.

A stipulation and proposed order were then submitted that only imposed the sanctions against Acker's client. The judge signed the order and took Acker's motion off calendar as moot.



From the Court File:

The online case docket, and the judge's previously mentioned order, indicates this sequence of events:

January 30 - Order for $1685 in sanctions against defendant and his attorney, payable within 20 days.

February 8 - Acker files motion to vacate the attorney sanctions.

February 19 - Deadline to pay sanctions (20 days after January 30 order).

February 20 - Acker submits declaration seeking to vacate the attorney sanctions.

February 27 - Acker submits another declaration seeking to vacate the attorney sanctions.

March 21 - Acker files a joint stipulation where the other attorney agrees to not impose attorney sanctions.






Lawzilla Commentary:

We have never seen anything like this where an attorney or law firm is sanctioned, then after the 20 day deadline to pay the sanctions, and he was seemingly in contempt of a court order, Stephen Acker obtained a stipulation and proposed new order saying only his client was liable for the sanctions.

We do not know the full details, do not have all the pleadings, and - most importantly - are not privy to the discussions attorney Acker had with his client - but this seems wildly inappropriate and on its face looks like attorney Acker is throwing his client under the bus.

As of February 20th it seems both Acker & Whipple and its client had disobeyed the court order to pay sanctions. Otherwise, it seems to us the issue would be moot. We are not sure why the attorneys were not in contempt of court for not paying the sanctions.

From the court docket we do not see any declaration from Acker's client.

We do not see anything where the client agreed to relieve his attorney from the sanctions order.

Why didn't the law firm of Acker and Whipple simply pay the sanctions? Why couldn't they include the amount in their billing if they thought it was unfair? Is Acker & Whipple too broke to pay $1685 in sanctions?

In our opinion there is another issue ...

Assuming there were grounds for the judge to reconsider the January 30th order against the attorneys, something arising between January 30th and February 8th, we are still surprised to see all this legal work that leaves the client footing the bill.

From the docket, it appears attorney Acker and his firm was busy, and spending a lot of time (possibly more than $1685 worth) trying to vacate the attorney sanctions.

On February 20th he filed a declaration then filed a second declaration on the 27th, and then a stipulation was filed on March 21st (although possibly submitted on 2/27 but the court did not file it until 3/21).

Again - this taking place after sanctions were apparently ordered to be paid.

In our opinion, we thought attorneys were supposed to do everything to protect their clients, including "falling on their sword" if needed. We do not see how Stephen Acker's client benefitted from what happened.

Would you hire Stephen Acker to be your attorney?

Maybe there is a good explanation for this.

What we do know is there was a sanctions order against defendant and his attorney. If his attorney paid the sanctions then the defendant would no longer be at risk of further legal proceedings against him to recover the sanctions. But now only the defendant owes the sanctions.

We are not saying Acker or his law firm did anything legally wrong. Maybe Acker did what his client told him to do. We have never seen this situation before and are surprised about a stipulation absolving an attorney of sanctions but leaving them with his client.

We have asked Mr. Acker for his comments so he can address this interesting situation, the legal tactics and proprietary of what happened, and how this result was in his client's interest. We asked if anything in this article is incorrect.

Attorney Stephen Acker did not respond. You can draw your own conclusions.

Stephen Acker was admitted to the California Bar in 1975. Bar Number 64996.

Acker and Whipple
811 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90017

Law School: Hastings College of the Law

Sanctions are Recoverable as a Judgment - Analysis of the little known fact that sanctions awarded in a lawsuit can be enforced as their own separate judgment. Surprise someone by putting a lien on their bank account, home, wages, etc.