JW LEGAL WEASELS GET STITCHES
“The battle belongs to Jehovah,” Brumley…
ROWLAND, ET AL. V. WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., ET AL., No. 24-5196 (9th Cir. 2025)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-5196/24-5196-2025-07-07.html
Court Description: Attorney Sanctions / 28 U.S.C. § 1927 The panel affirmed the district court’s order sanctioning attorney Philip Brumley under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for submitting a signed affidavit that demonstrated a reckless disregard for providing an accurate and truthful accounting of facts relevant to determining whether the court had personal jurisdiction over defendant Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (“WTPA”).
Brumley, who was General Counsel for WTPA, argued that the district court lacked authority to sanction him under § 1927 because he signed the affidavit in question as a fact witness—not as an attorney of record admitted to practice before the district court, this Court, or any other court within the Ninth Circuit. The panel held that Brumley forfeited that argument on appeal, but nonetheless forgave that forfeiture as to the purely legal question presented.
Under § 1927, a court may sanction “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” The sole issue on appeal is whether Brumley was an “attorney” within the meaning of § 1927 when he signed an affidavit testifying to “direct knowledge” gained in his role as “General Counsel” for WTPA. The panel rejected Brumley’s argument that he was not acting as “an attorney” when he signed and submitted the affidavit because he was not an attorney of record in the underlying matter. That Brumley was not an attorney of record was immaterial. Counsel for Brumley stated at oral argument that Brumley was an attorney admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court. Thus, Brumley was an attorney admitted to conduct cases in a court in the United States whose undisputed conduct before the district court may be reached by § 1927.
The panel also rejected Brumley’s argument that, even if he was an attorney, he was not acting “as an attorney” because he was acting merely as a fact witness when he signed the affidavit. General counsels act “as attorneys” when they sign and submit affidavits in support of their clients in their capacities as general counsels and testify to facts known because of their roles. Here, Brumley did exactly that. Brumley accordingly acted “as an attorney” when he signed and submitted that affidavit as General Counsel of WTPA and may be sanctioned under § 1927.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-5196/24-5196-2025-07-07.pdf?ts=1751905831