7th Circuit criticizes lawyer for raising too many issues on appeal
Image from Shutterstock.
A federal appeals court is criticizing an Indianapolis lawyer for filing an appeal that raises too many issues and “conveys the impression of ‘dictated but not read.’ ”
The decision (PDF) by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that lawyer Ronald Weldy filed the appeal too late on behalf of former Visteon employees who claimed they did not receive a timely “COBRA” notice that they could continue their health insurance. The National Law Review covered the decision in an article by a Foley & Lardner lawyer.
A federal judge had awarded about $1.85 million to 741 class members, an amount that was cut in half as a result of Visteon’s reorganization. According to the appeals court, Weldy’s appeal contended that “the penalties are too low, the class too small, and the attorneys’ fees too modest.”
The appeals court found that Weldy had filed the appeal too late for his clients, but not for his claim for additional attorney fees, which the court denied. Weldy had been awarded $303,000, but he also sought a supplemental award from the class.
The appeals court criticized Weldy for raising too many issues on appeal, for “ungrammatical” passages in his brief, for arguing that some of his clients received too much money, and for failing to address a question by the court in supplemental briefing.
Weldy’s brief violates “the principle that appellate counsel must concentrate attention on the best issues,” the court said in the July 1 opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook. “To brief more than three or four issues not only diverts the judge’s attention but also means that none of the issues will be addressed in necessary depth; an appellate brief covering 13 issues can spend only a few pages on each.
“The brief’s writing is careless to boot,” the court continued. “It conveys the impression of ‘dictated but not read.’ Here are two sentences: ‘This court should be entered a high daily statutory penalty in this matter. Respectfully, the award of the district court to the contrary law and an abuse of discretion.’ There’s more, equally ungrammatical. Weldy is in no position to contend that his compensation is too low.”
Weldy did not immediately respond to a request for comment left on his voice mail by the ABA Journal.
