Comparing FRCP Rule 11: Civil Procedure Assignment, University Name

This assignment analyzes the evolution of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 11, focusing on its application in the early 1980s compared to its current form. The assignment uses the case study from the book "A Civil Action" to illustrate the procedural wrangling surrounding a Rule 11 motion. It explores how the older version of Rule 11 differed from the amended version, particularly concerning the standards for signing legal documents and the imposition of sanctions. The analysis considers whether the outcome of the Rule 11 motion would have been different under the current rule, examining the attorney's conduct, the judge's decisions, and the potential for sanctions against the lawyers involved. The assignment highlights the shift from a good faith standard to a more stringent requirement for reasonable inquiry and emphasizes the impact of these changes on deterring frivolous litigation and reducing unnecessary delays. The analysis references key aspects of the rule's application, including the duty to investigate facts and law before certifying them, and the judge's discretion in imposing sanctions, making the analysis applicable in the context of contemporary civil procedure.

Running head: CIVIL LAW
CIVIL LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CIVIL LAW
In the present case study, Cheeseman, the lawyer on behalf of one of the co-defendants
filed a Rule 11 motion against the plaintiff’s lawyer Schlictmann order to end the case
immediately. Rule 11 motion charged Schlictmann for filing a frivolous and baseless lawsuit.
The judge Skinner when held a hearing on the motion, Schlictmann did not agree to submit to
cross examination conducted by Cheeseman as according to him it would his liabilities to his
clients. The judge denied the Rule 11 motion (Harr 2011).
Schlictmann when called for cross examination said that when the lawyer was taken to
the witness podium, he ceased to be the attorney of his clients. If an attorney has to answer as an
witness, it would be unethical for him because answering to questions in a cross examination by
the defendant attorney would go against his client. The attorney must withdraw himself first as
an attorney, and then only he can be called as a witness. The judge while deciding the case may
hold Schlictmann liable for contempt, impose a fine on him or even sentence him to jail for his
refusal to appear as a witness but the judge did not do so as he emphasized on the
professionalism of the attorney, instead he dismissed the complaint.
The judge made it very clear about the Rule 11 that it is an effective tool to stop frivolous
and abusive litigation but it cannot be used to harass the serious litigant whose claims may not be
developed at the time when such case is filed (Cavanagh 1985).
However if the case is being decided in present day, the amended version of FRCP Rule
11 will be applicable in this case. The older version of Rule 11 had very limited scope and
application. The pre 1983 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 when compared to present
amended Rule 11, it is seen that the standard for signing laid in old rule was neither precise nor
strict. The amendments were made to clarify and strengthen the Rule’s requirements. The new

2CIVIL LAW
rule focuses on certification of the best knowledge, information and belief of the lawyer or
attorney formed after conducting reasonable enquiry. Thus the new rule is based on reasonable
standard and not on ambiguous good faith formula. The new rule is found to be stricter as its
violation would make the attorney subjected to sanctions.
Moreover, the amendment of Rule 11 was made to decrease the litigation expenditure and
unnecessary delay mainly in two ways. Firstly, the attorney had to meet the standards clearly
before they could sign the papers. Secondly, by empowering the judges to impose sanctions on
the attorneys for violating rules would definitely make the latter more serious in their work.
The old rule though had provisions of sanctions but they were hardly invoked. The old
rule had limitations while imposing sanctions as there were confusion over range of appropriate
sanctions and reluctance to impose sanctions. The new rule overcomes it in the following ways.
Firstly, the word sanction was deliberately added to make the lawyers cautious to the provisions
enumerated in the Rule. Secondly, the new rule provides that the judge must impose sanctions as
it is made mandatory, besides the judge has the power to impose costs and fees for violating the
rule. Moreover, the new rule allows the attorney or client or both to be punished.
If the case was decided in the present day, judge Skinner could impose sanction on
Cheeseman, even he could punish him for inducing frivolous actions. He could be asked to show
grounds for pleading by using Rule 11. Cheeseman would have to certify that he had good
grounds of pleading else he could be punished or subject to sanctions.

3CIVIL LAW
References:
Cavanagh, E.D., 1985. Developing Standards Under Amended Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Hofstra L. Rev., 14, p.499
Harr, J., 2011. A civil action. Vintage