• February 17, 2011

Update (2/17/2011):  Another sanction affirmed, this time against a disbarred lawyer proceeding pro se.  (And it’s another caning by Carver County Judge Philip T. Kanning…)

Original post (1/13/2011):  Noting a second affirmance of a Minnesota trial court’s sanctioning a lawyer by the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week, caused Minnesota Litigator to pose the question, above.   I note, in particular, that the failure at the trial court level to follow all of the procedural steps set out in Minnesota’s sanctions statute did not cause the Minnesota Court of Appeals (Bjorkman, Toussaint, Stoneburner) to “spare the rod” in the Paragon Bank case. (The Court of Appeals held that the sanctioned party had waived the claim by failing to raise it earlier).

The funding crisis of Minnesota’s judicial branch is no secret.  It is a matter of basic economic theory that scarcity/limited resources causes prices to rise.  Perhaps we are experiencing a rise in the price of factually unsupported allegations or legally baseless claims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *