Rothstein v. American Airlines, Inc.
Filing
139
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/15/2012: Motion for pro hac vice counsel for leave to withdraw 138 is granted. Status hearing stricken for 6/18/2012and reset to and reset to 7/9/2012 @ 9:00 a.m. Entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/15/2012.Mailed notice(tsa, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Virginia M. Kendall
CASE NUMBER
9 C 2770
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
6/15/2012
Rothstein vs. American Airlines, Inc.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Motion for pro hac vice counsel for leave to withdraw [138] is granted. Status hearing stricken for 6/18/2012
and reset to 7/9/2012 @ 9:00 a.m.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
Gary Soter, appearing in this case pro hac vice, has petitioned the Court to withdraw as
Rothstein’s attorney, citing financial hardship and unfair prejudice in continuing to represent
Rothstein unremunerated. (Doc. 138). The Court will grant Mr. Soter’s Motion based on these
representations; however, the Court first finds it necessary to clarify and correct the record.
According to Rule 16.2 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, the Court may permit parties to participate in their status hearings by telephone.
This permission is in fact a privilege, as it is solely within the discretion of the Court to grant,
subject to just cause for the attorney to appear by telephone.
On September 19, 2011, the Court held a status hearing at which Rothstein’s local counsel
appeared and orally requested that Mr. Soter, as lead counsel, be granted leave to appear by
telephone. Once Mr. Soter was patched into the Courtroom via telephone, he reported irritatedly to
the Court that he had filed a motion to appear by telephone but that he “never heard a response.”
(Tr. 9/19/11 A.M., pg. 4). The error was Mr. Soter’s, rather than the Court’s, because he had failed to
properly notice the motion to the Court’s attention. Instead, Mr. Soter had improperly filed his
motion as a response to a pending motion to continue. (Doc. 107). Nevertheless, the Court
accommodated Mr. Soter and informed the parties that the motion for entry of judgment under
Rule 54(b) was denied. (Doc. 108). Mr. Soter orally requested a ruling immediately on a pending
motion for judgment on the pleadings, expressing frustration that the case would continue when
he wanted it to be concluded–although the motion had not yet become fully briefed. At that time,
9C2770 Rothstein vs. American Airlines, Inc.
Page 1 of 3
STATEMENT
the Court considered his tone to be aggressive and noted it in the Court’s daily notations due to the
fact that the Court had extended the phone privilege to Mr. Soter and as a reminder for his next
phone appearance. The Court also accommodated the parties’ request to reschedule their trial date.
On June 4, 2012, the Court held a status hearing at which Mr. Soter again appeared by
telephone, this time without local counsel, in this instance having properly noticed the Court by
motion. The Court solicited Mr. Soter’s position and he responded. When the Court sought to pose
a question regarding the position that Mr. Soter was making, he interrupted the Court and insisted
that he be allowed to “make [his] record” because he had been “waiting eight months” for a ruling,
which is a gross mischaracterization of the procedural history of this case. (Tr. 6/4/12 A.M., pg. 4).
Nevertheless, the Court permitted Mr. Soter to present his position to its conclusion. According to
the transcript, the Court then stated, “No, do not even open your (indicating) mouth,” a hand
gesture and instruction that was directed towards the attorney present in the Courtroom
representing American Airlines–and not to the attorney on the telephone for whom such a gesture
would be meaningless. (Tr. 6/4/12 A.M., pg. 4). Mr. Soter improperly attempts to claim that the
hand gesture and statement were somehow directed at him even though he was not present in the
court. He takes umbrage with the Court’s statement assuming that it was directed at him when in
truth, had he been in court, he would have seen that the Court was silencing the attorney for
American Airlines so that the Court could immediately respond to Mr. Soter’s offensive tone and
inaccurate argument. Mr. Soter’s argument to the Court was obstreperous and rude. The Court
took note that Mr. Soter was emboldened by his appearance telephonically and not in the presence
of the bench or the entire courtroom of waiting attorneys and revoked his privilege of appeared by
telephone in the future commenting that perhaps his aggressive tone occurred due to the fact that
he was not appearing face to face with the Court. Mr. Soter’s failure to speak civilly and
respectfully is required by Duty Number One of Lawyers’ Duties to the Court pursuant to the
Seventh Circuit Standards for Professional Conduct. To avoid further miscommunication the Court
declined to extend the privilege of appearing by telephone again to Mr. Soter, stating that he had
forfeited such a privilege by speaking rudely and unprofessionally. The Court concluded that Mr.
Soter would not be so brazen and disrespectful if he were present before the Court and ordered
that he appear in person at the next status hearing.
In his filing, Mr. Soter challenges this Court’s finding and order in spite of also seeking to
withdraw. It has long been held that federal courts possess certain implied powers to manage their
internal affairs and to control their own dockets. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)
(citing United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752,
764 (1980)); accord Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 309 Fed.Appx. 40, 42 (7th Cir. 2009) (a federal
court has inherent authority to manage its own docket). For this reason, courts are universally
acknowledged to possess the power to “impose silence, respect, and decorum in their presence,
and submission to their lawful mandates.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43 (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6
Wheat. 204, 227 (1821)). These inherent powers of the federal courts are “governed not by rule or
statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43 (quoting Link v. Wabash
9C2770 Rothstein vs. American Airlines, Inc.
Page 2 of 3
STATEMENT
R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–631 (1962)); see also Miller, 309 Fed.Appx. at 42 When a lawyer appears
before a court he should not act in a manner that demeans his profession. See Canon Number One
of the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 1‐5 (“A lawyer should
maintain high standards of professional conduct and should encourage fellow lawyers to do
likewise. He should be temperate and dignified, and he should refrain from all illegal and morally
reprehensible conduct.”).
Mr. Soter attests that he has spent more than 600 hours on Rothstein’s cause and has received
no attorneys’ fees whatsoever for his efforts. (Doc. 137‐1). Possibly this is the reason for Mr. Soter’s
irritated manner when appearing before the Court. Yet, if this the source of frustration for Mr.
Soter, it has befouled his communications with the Court and he should be aware that there are
remedies for his frustration – one of which he is seeking now – withdrawal. The Court also notes
that local counsel was retained to appear on this matter and yet, Mr. Soter failed to have local
counsel (who would be more accustomed to the proper demeanor and rules of the Northern
District of Illinois) appear on his client’s behalf. Arguing to the Court that he has no funds to fly to
Chicago belies the truth that he has access to capable counsel to appear locally for him. Regardless
of his financial conflicts with his client, this does not excuse the unprofessional and disrespectful
conduct of Mr. Soter at the June 4, 2012 status hearing. With this clarification of the record and
mindful of the standard of professional conduct that this Court demands of the attorneys who
practice before it, the Court grants Mr. Soter’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel based on financial
hardship and unfair prejudice (Doc. 138) and dismisses the Court’s order that he appear in person
at the status on June 18, 2012. Due to the change in counsel, the status is reset to July 9th at 9:00.
9C2770 Rothstein vs. American Airlines, Inc.
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?