WHEN RULE 41(D) COMES KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR
September 8, 2010 § 11 Comments
Rule 41(d), MRCP, is the familiar rule by which the Chancery Clerk is authorized to send out a notice to all counsel and self-represented parties in cases ” … wherein there has been no action of record during the preceding twelve months …” that the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. The rule requires the clerk to dismiss the action unless within thirty days of the notice, ” … action of record is taken or an application in writing is made to the court and good cause is shown why it should be continued as a pending case.”
You have received such a notice, and, galvanized into action, you toss it on your paralegal’s desk and say, “Here, take care of this,” as you saunter out the door trying not to be late for your tee time. The paralegal scours the files and finds that your usual response is to file something called “Notice to Keep Case on the Active Docket,” and she tosses a copy of it on the secretary’s desk and says, “Here, do me one of these,” and returns to her office to continue whittling away at a four-foot-tall mound of discovery. In due course, the secretary produces said pleading, you sign it, the paralegal files it, and everything is fine. Until the next week, when you find your case was dismissed despite your efforts. What went wrong?
In the case of Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Moore, 994 So.2d 723, 728 (Miss. 2008), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a Circuit Judge should have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit after he had received Rule 41(d) notice, and his attorney filed nothing more than letters with the court requesting that it not be dismissed. The court reasoned that Rule 41(d) requires that some procedural action that would have the effect of moving the case forward be filed, or that a proper motion under the rules be filed and noticed, the motion showing good cause why the action should not be dismiised and asking the court to rule affirmatively that it should not be dismissed.
There was evidence of severe dilatoriness on the part of plaintiff’s counsel in the ICC case. The appellate decision, however, did not turn on his want of action, but only found it to be an aggravating factor. The court’s holding turned on counsel’s non-compliance with the rules, and the result was dismissal of the lawsuit. Although dismissal under 41(d) is without prejudice, the dismissal in ICC was fatal due to the statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court decision noted that there has been a relaxed attitude about responses to 41(d) notices, but stated that it would not follow the same path. ICC now stands for the proposition that if you skirt by the rule and succeed in having your action kept on the active docket, you will likely fail if the other side appeals.
If you want to keep an action from being dismissed under Rule 41(d), simply follow the rule and either: (1) Take some action of record, such as serving discovery, or filing a legitimate motion to advance the case; or (2) File a motion with the court asking that it not be dismissed, stating good cause to support your position, and notice the motion for hearing before the thirty days expires. Anything short of either action could result in a favorable ruling by a more relaxed trial judge, but will leave you vulnerable on appeal.
Caveat: Remember that Uniform Chancery Court Rule 1.10 requires that discovery must be completed within 90 days of service of an answer, unless extended by the court. It is unlikely that this judge would have allowed either party an extension that would cause a case to be pending as long as a year. It would be difficult to convince a judge that propounding discovery after the discovery deadline has expired would be an action of record that would have the effect of moving the case forward.
Comment: The consequences of Rule 41(d) to a cause of action are usually not as dire in Chancery Court as they are in Circuit. Statutes of limitation are not as often a concern in Chancery. For clients on an unequal financial footing, however, a 41(d) dismissal can cause expenses and fees to increase dramatically, and may spell the end of meritorious litigation. It may also require you to represent a client through an appeal that you were not paid to handle, just to avoid some other action by your client.
A GRAVE DISCOURTESY
September 3, 2010 § 2 Comments
You get 10 points if you can answer this question:
In our law and rules there are transgressions that can be treated as contempt, and there are some that can be sanctioned by removal or disqualification of the attorney.
What action or or omission of an attorney ” … will be considered a grave discourtesy?”
MORE ON MANDATORY PRO BONO
August 31, 2010 § 1 Comment
Philip W. Thomas of Jackson publishes the Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary blog, and you can find a link to it on the right of this page. If you don’t view it regularly, you’re doing yourself a disservice.
Thomas turned his attention yesterday to the proposed rule change to the Rule 6.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that would make pro bono mandatory in our state. His post, Mandatory Pro Bono Coming to Mississippi? is linked for you to read.
I already commented on the proposed rule here, and my views are contrary to Mr. Thomas’s. There is a comment to my post taking issue with my position, and you should read it.
My suggestion is that you study the proposed rule, read over these posts and any other material on the subject that you can find, and submit your comment to the Supreme Court. Whatever your position, this will affect you and your practice, and you need to make your voice heard. You can read a copy of the proposed rule here.
IS THIS THE SOLUTION TO PRO SE LITIGATION?
August 25, 2010 § 7 Comments
A post about proposed changes to the pro bono rules for lawyers is here. There is a thoughtful comment to that post that highlights some dimensions of the situation.
It’s no secret that pro se litigants are appearing more and more frequently in Chancery Court. Whenever I ask a self-represented litigant why he or she did not hire an attorney, cost is always the response.
In our district, it’s not uncommon for a simple, irreconcilable differences (ID) divorce to cost upward of $1,500 to $2,500, plus court costs, although I have heard of some lawyers charging as little as $250 plus costs for an ID divorce with no children.
Self-representation, however, is not limited to routine, uncomplicated matters like ID divorces involving no children, no property, no joint debts and no other problems. I see pro se litigants in all kinds of matters. I presided over a termination of parental rights case not too long ago where the father represented himself and lost. I have seen pro se litigants in an adverse possession case, contempts, paternity, and even in a partition suit where, believe it or not, both sides were pro se. I can say unequivocally that I have never seen a party who proceeded pro se in a contested case leave the courtroom in better shape legally or equitably than he or she was when they walked in.
Although most all say that they choose to proceed pro se due to the rising cost of legal fees, I find in the course of things that others simply underestimate the complexity of the issues involved and think that legal matters are little more than filling out a few sheets of paper and filing with the court. Still others are lured by the siren-song of the internet sites that push cheap fill-in-the-blank do-it-yourself legal proceedings. The common denominator among all of these is that they are looking for a cheap, one-size-fits-all, easy solution to what may be a complicated situation.
These are the people who wind up in court pro se. In many cases, those pro se parties are getting simple ID divorces using kits they purchased on-line. Some are getting pleadings prepared by “secretarial services,” in violation of state law prohibiting practice of law without a license. The simple cases with no children do not usually give rise to later litigation. Pro se litigants with children, however, are a recurring problem.
Problems with child support provisions, joint and sole custody provisions, division of property, and allocation of debts are all common problems in these do-it-yourself cases. I have one pair of parties in Clarke County that I have sent back to the drawing board four times, and, although they are my most extreme case, they are by no means the only case that I have had to treat that way. I have just about decided that, if there are children, I will require the parties either to have an attorney or I will appoint a guardian ad litem at their expense.
The self-represented parties seldom understand why they can’t simply have their papers signed, and they are invariably frustrated when I tell them that I can not advise them how to draft an acceptable child support provision, or why that waiver filed a week before the complaint won’t cut it, or why they need a property settlement agreement when they don’t have any property.
How do we make legal services more affordable, thus reducing the pool of pro se litigants? Some claim that “limited scope representation,” also known as “unbundling” is the answer to lower legal fees. In essence, it is a representation arrangement in which the respnsibility of the lawyer is limited and the fee is resultingly lower. The attorney may, for instance, agree only to advise one of the parties about the language of the property settlement and child support agreement, or simply to prepare pleadings. The clients buy only as much legal service as they feel they need.
The Supreme Court’s Commission on Access to Justice proposed an amendment to Rule 1.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct to allow for limited-scope representation. They met on Monday, August 23, and since the comment period has expired, I assume they will pass the rule on to the Supreme Court for adoption. I am all for it.
Although the proposed rule approves and encourages the practice, it does not address how a representation agreement would read so as to cover all of the ethical concerns that might arise. There is information available online, however, that may provide a starting point for lawyers. The LAWYERS USA website offers some information. The ABA has some info. The Civil Justice Network also has some info. A paper presenting the pros and cons of the practice is here.
Whether limited scope representation is the answer to the growing numbers of pro se litigants, I have no way of knowing. I do believe that it has the potential to help dramatically because it will decrease the amount of time judges will need to devote to scrutinizing pro se litigants’ pleadings and paperwork.
One caveat: I will not approve a limited-scope representation arrangement in any probate matter. Rule 6.1 of the Uniform Chancery Court Rules requires that every fiduciary retain an attorney, and you will be expected to continue in your role as counsel once you are in until you find substitute counsel. I will not allow the operation of the new rule (if it is enacted) to create an end-run around Rule 6.1.
An approach to the pro se phenomenon that I can not endorse is continued encouragement of laypeople to tackle more of their own legal matters. I saw a bar-produced video of smiling legal professionals encouraging people to handle their own “routine” legal matters, and making it sound as easy as folding a paper airplane. I don’t understand this approach. The American Medical Association does not promote do-it-yourself tonsillectomies, but then medical ethics includes the fundamental proscription, “Do no harm.” To me, the solution is not to encourage people to do their own legal surgery. The answer is to make it more likely that they will have a competent surgeon.
I am not a fan of pro se litigation. Even seemingly simple, routine matters may have serious implications for the parties, and I assure you that they have absolutely no clue about those ramifications. Self-represented litigants seldom have a grasp of the ramifications and complexities of equitable distribution, the various forms of child custody, or joint debt, to name but a few of the many legal snares that await the unwary. Also, the parties are under no duty to be honest and forthright with the court, leaving open the very real possibility of fraud or worse. Without legal advice and the check that an ethical attorney provides, the parties’ paperwork can create more problems than it solves, and even in the absence of lawyers it is clearly not the duty of the judge to advise them about the possible mess they may be creating. Yet, every day, inexorably, we see more and more self-represented litigants.
I am a firm believer in access to justice, but in our commendable haste to discover a way to do that, let us not lose sight of what it is we are trying to achieve: access to justice. Not access to disaster. Limited scope representation may be a good first step toward alleviating this problem.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO RULE 8.05
August 24, 2010 § Leave a comment
The Supreme Court has posted proposed revisions to Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 and your comments are invited.
There is, arguably, no Uniform Chancery Court Rule that affects Chancery practitioners more strongly than 8.05. If you have a position on this proposal, you need to make it known before final action. The deadline is September 20, 2010.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 