Santa Ana : Law Firm Loses Appeal, Gets Additional Penalty

An appellate court on Friday affirmed a $750-civil penalty against one of California’s largest law firms, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and then added another $1,000 Friday for what it called a frivolous appeal.

The firm picked the wrong legal tool to challenge a portion of a lawsuit and then persisted, a tactic “unworthy of any licensed practitioner--much less a major law firm,” according to the ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal.

The biting opinion by Justice Thomas F. Crosby Jr. questioned the firm’s motives in refusing to accept the original decision of Orange County Superior Judge Judith M. Ryan.

“(Gibson, Dunn’s maneuver) appears to us to be a typical word-processing harassment technique designed to wear down the plaintiff, cause unnecessary delays and generate activity on the firm time sheet, a lamentable and all too common practice in this court’s experience,” Crosby wrote.

The law firm was defending four employees of Lucky Stores Inc. against the claim of a store manager who had been demoted to night clerk in 1983. The lawsuit alleged the demotion was based on false statements by the other employees.

Gibson, Dunn filed legal papers questioning the adequacy of one of several claims--that the defendants interfered with the demoted clerk’s contractual relations with Lucky. Such a challenge must be done with a motion to strike the allegation, but the law firm attempted to raise the issue in a general demurrer--a less specific legal challenge, according to the opinion.

The distinction “is basic and should be well known to every law student who has successfully completed a course in civil procedure,” Crosby wrote.

Crosby was joined by Justices Sheila Prell Sonenshine and Edward J. Wallin in affirming the sanctions ordered by Ryan, but Wallin dissented from the decision to add the $1,000 penalty.