A Magistrate Court judge in Pennsylvania has admonished a plaintiff’s attorney for her behavior before and during a settlement conference in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, declining to hand out further punishment.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit earlier this year alleging violations of the FCRA and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act related to how the defendant handled information in the plaintiff’s credit file. After the case was referred for a settlement conference, court staff attempted several times to schedule the session and obtain the required confidential settlement memoranda from each side.
- While defense counsel responded and provided availability, the plaintiff’s attorney did not reply to repeated emails from chambers proposing dates. The court eventually scheduled the conference and ordered the parties to submit their settlement memoranda four business days before the session.
- As the judge later noted, the plaintiff’s attorney did not review the order, requested a template the day before the conference, and filed the memorandum just before midnight. She then appeared late to the conference and logged in from a car while wearing casual clothing, later moving to a kitchen where a household member walked in and out of the room.
The ruling: Although the case settled, the court issued a Rule to Show Cause and held a separate hearing to evaluate whether sanctions were warranted. The attorney expressed remorse and admitted she was “bad at following directions” but offered no explanation for her attire or choice of setting.
- Judge Elizabeth T. Hey of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that the attorney’s conduct wasted court resources and violated procedural expectations, highlighting that remote appearances require professionalism, privacy, and appropriate attire.
- The ruling notes that the attorney’s behavior “undermined the serious nature of proceedings before the court… even remote proceedings”. In assessing sanctions, the court concluded that an admonishment was sufficient, writing that an award of expenses “would be unjust” because her late submission and unprofessional appearance did not ultimately derail the settlement process.
- The court emphasized precedent allowing sanctions for failures to comply with pretrial orders yet stated that penalties should be “narrowly tailored to meet the misconduct”.
