The First Rule of Holes

When in a hole, stop digging. Now April Gallop's lawyer, William Veale, not only has to argue why he shouldn't be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit, but has to argue why he should not be fined for filing a malicious response to being asked why he shouldn't be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Good fun all around. Another nod towards LashL, the Goddess of Legaltainment for providing the court documents.

In his affidavit in support of Gallop’s motion for disqualification, William Veale—one of Gallop’s counsel of record—“demand[s]” not only that the panel, but “any other members of the bench of this Circuit who share their feelings[,] be recused.” Motion to Disqualify (Veale Aff. ¶ 2). We know of no precedent for recusing unnamed judges based on a prejudice, the only evidence of which is manifested in a decision adverse to an attorney’s (or a party’s) interests. Cf. In re Nettles, 394 F.3d 1001, 1003 (7th Cir. 2005) (recusing all district and circuit judges where the defendant acted on a threat to destroy the federal courthouse in which those judges worked by means of a truck bomb); but see Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8, 10 (2d Cir. 1999) (recognizing that under the rule of necessity, where all judges would be disqualified in a suit brought against every district and circuit court judge in the circuit, none are disqualified). Veale certainly points to none. Indeed, rather than pursuing his client’s interests, Veale’s actions appear to be malicious—intended, in bad faith, to use his position as an attorney of record to harass and disparage the court. See Tapia-Ortiz, 185 F.3d at 11. Such conduct, in our view, is ground for consideration of further appellate sanctions. See In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc., 218 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir. 2000).

Accordingly—wholly apart from the order to show cause required pursuant to our decision in Gallop, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1565858, at *5, for which briefs are now due on July 11, 2011 (for Gallop and her counsel) and July 14, 2011 (for the government)—William Veale is hereby ordered to show cause in writing within thirty days from the date of entry of this order why this Court should not impose additional sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C. §1927, and the inherent authority of the Court, requiring him to provide appropriate notice to any federal court before whom he appears of any sanctions that may be imposed against him by this Court.