Grandstanding motions could bring sanctions, judge warns in suit over lawyer 'conflictineering'
A federal judge in Atlanta is warning litigants in a suit over a lawyer’s litigation tactics that they could face sanctions if they file court documents “for the purpose of harassment, intimidation or grandstanding.”
U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten issued that warning in a March 31 order (PDF) allowing RICO claims against a lawyer in a child custody case who is accused of creating “litigation chaos” as part of a civil racketeering enterprise. The Daily Report (sub. req.) covered the decision.
The suit filed by John Murphy and his current wife claims Atlanta lawyer Millard Farmer used “conflictineering” to extort payments and force concessions by Murphy. Conflictineering, the Daily Report explains, is a tactic invented by Farmer that uses litigation or other events to expose what he believes to be immorality, creating social and political consequences for adversaries.
Farmer represented Murphy’s ex-wife in the child-custody battle. Other defendants include Farmer’s co-counsel in the custody battle; an activist; and the activist’s group, My Advocate Center, which offers consulting services in child custody cases. The suit alleges violation of both the federal and Georgia RICO statutes.
Batten allowed the federal RICO claims, as well as Georgia RICO claims that are not covered by the state’s abusive litigation statute. He also allowed defamation claims, though he acknowledged some statements by the activist “might be hyperbole” that no reasonable person would believe.
But Batten refused Murphy’s request to sanction Farmer for filing a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for Murphy’s children in the civil RICO suit.
Batten said he agreed with Farmer that Farmer’s motion for the guardian lacked supporting authority, but he declined to sanction Farmer at this time. “However, the court will take this opportunity to advise all parties that motions and other filings in this case are not to be used for the purpose of harassment, intimidation or grandstanding,” Batten wrote. “If the court determines that a party is making filings for improper purposes, or if a party files a motion without any support for the relief requested, the court will impose serious sanctions.”
Farmer told the Daily Report that Murphy’s suit has “numerous untrue statements.” He pointed out that the judge assumed the allegations were true for purposes of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, even though the defendants disagree with the claims.
Murphy’s suit alleges that, during the child-custody litigation, Farmer:
• Filed more than 20 motions to disqualify judges. (Farmer told the Daily Report his motions were intended to remove just one judge, and to change the way cases are assigned to judges.)
• Filed a “frivolous and vexatious” third-party complaint against Murphy’s current wife that included “abusive, impertinent material.”
• Sought to disqualify a guardian ad litem appointed for the children.
• Pressured a psychiatrist he had once represented for free to support the ex-wife. When she testified about her concerns, he revealed personal information about her in court briefs.
• Intimidated a landlord who had rented to the ex-wife and raised concerns about her conduct.
• Filed frivolous litigation against the court reporter for the judge in the child custody litigation, then offered to dismiss the case if she would persuade the judge to recuse himself.
• Participated in a town hall meeting that was “replete with false accusations against” Murphy and his current wife.
The suit also alleges the activist enticed Murphy’s children away from his home where she asked leading questions with the purpose of making “false or distorted allegations” of child abuse or misconduct. The taped interview was shown at town hall meetings organized by Farmer, the ex-wife and the activist, the suit claims. The activist also is accused of making defamatory claims about Murphy in a radio show known as Pro Advocate Radio.
The suit bases RICO claims on several alleged predicate acts, including attempted extortion (through demands for attorney fees and relinquishment of claims), attempted bribery of a judge (though the offer to the court reporter), influencing witnesses (including the psychiatrist), kidnapping (for the activist luring away the boys for her interview), filing a false report of child abuse, and wire fraud (though the activist’s operation of her center to lend credibility to false accusations).
Corrected at 9:26 a.m. to spell “conflictineering” the way it was spelled in the March 31 order.
