appeals the district court’s award of sanctions under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This case presents a novel

question for this circuit: whether and to what extent “of

counsel” attorneys are liable for sanctions under Rule 11.

We conclude that “of counsel” attorneys may be held liable

for sanctions under Rule 11 for signing a frivolous

complaint. But because this case poses a question of first

impression, we decline to give this rule retroactive effect, but

will apply this rule to all attorney “of counsel” designations

made after publication of this opinion.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/14/23-16023.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695863&forum_id=2#48758035)

On the facts I think I agree w/ Bumatay (and I say this as someone with no love at all for Dersh, and even less, somehow, for Lake): The intent of Rule 11 is to punish and deter frivolous, bad-faith, or otherwise objectionable attorney conduct. It sounds like nobody claims Dershowitz's actual contributions to the pleadings were themselves objectionable or incorrect.

Majority seems like shitlibs trying to scare big names away from litigation they don't like. They make this argument, "oh, well a big name can influence a decision maker," but judges tell prominent lawyers to eat shit all the time.

That said, I would have assumed that all parties on a pleading generally were considered to have shared responsibility for a pleading they're noted as counsel on, and asking a lawyer to be aware of what they're signing up to* seems fair (even if it's theoretically 'onerous' to do so).

*Which, in this case, is probably Lake et al spewing a bunch of QAnon retard horseshit and the 9th Circuit shitlibs saying 'hold my beer' and spewing a ton of retarded shitlib bullshit back at them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695863&forum_id=2#48758046)

2) if your name is on a brief, the presumption should be you're responsible for the brief. it's retarded to be able to claim after the fact that you only wrote one page of the brief and have no idea what the rest of the brief says. if you only wrote one page, then maybe you should drop a footnote on the cover page next to your name saying you only wrote one page, and admitting that this whole thing is a fraudlies charade

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695863&forum_id=2#48758076)

lol'ed thinking of firms like OMM which have counsel and of counsel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695863&forum_id=2#48758217)

>To be sure, “of counsels” and other specialized attorneys are not immune from Rule 11 sanctions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695863&forum_id=2#48758220)

1) Don't sign it, only attorneys who can sign on to the whole thing are signatories.

2) Introduce "signs paragraph 8 only" disclaimers. This is dumb, but it's the only way the opposition can know which lawyer is actually responsible for what.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695863&forum_id=2#48758769)

you will take the whole BBC

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695863&forum_id=2#48758776)