A plaintiff’s attorney was caught lying after filing an “ill-conceived and poorly researched motion for an improper purpose” and then failed to attend a hearing that he was told by the judge that he and his client needed to attend, leading the judge to order the attorney to pay a $1,000 fine and have all the juicy details of this case laid out in great detail. This is one of those cases where the background I provide is just the tip of the iceberg of what transpired.
The Background: The plaintiff was injured in a car accident back in 2015. Two years later, the defendant sent the plaintiff a letter demanding payment. An attorney — not the one referenced above — filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit against the defendant in 2018 in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For five years, the case was litigated before being transferred to a different judge, who happened to be hearing another case brought by the same attorney against the same defendant making mostly the same allegations. The case was ultimately settled this past June. Then, the attorney referenced above — Daniel Sansoni — stepped in and filed a motion to vacate and reopen the proceedings on the grounds that the plaintiff had not given the original attorney the power to settle the case. The reason to re-open the case was ultimately about how much money the plaintiff was due to receive as part of the settlement. This is where things start to go south for Sansoni.
- The judge scheduled a hearing. Sansoni, who lives in Florida, asked if he could attend virtually and was told he had to be there in person.
- But at the hearing, Sansoni sent another attorney in his place. That attorney didn’t know why Sansoni did not show up, that he didn’t really know Sansoni or work with him, and had no idea why he was called to represent the plaintiff, whom he had never met.
- The new attorney tried to articulate Sansoni’s arguments, but didn’t do the best job given the circumstances.
- The plaintiff fired Sansoni and withdrew the motion to vacate and agreed not to pursue the original attorney for more of the settlement.
The Ruling: You really need to read everything in Judge Gerald J. Pappert’s ruling to get the full picture of what went on, but I guarantee you it’s worth the read.
What He Said: “Had he owned his mistakes and sincerely apologized, it would not have come to this,” Judge Pappert wrote of Sansoni. “But Sansoni’s conduct was too egregious to ignore. His motion was frivolous, improper and factually unsupported, and worse yet were his lies, misleading assertions and refusal to admit any wrongdoing. This sanction is the Court’s best effort to deter Sansoni from ever again engaging in similar conduct.”
