Galvan, Matter of
| Decision Date | 13 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | D-246 and D-247,D-245,Nos. D-244,s. D-244 |
| Citation | 92 F.3d 582 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Luis M. GALVAN, Christopher Lowe, John F. Leuck, and Barry D. Sheppard, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.
The first thing an appellate judge does after picking up the briefs of an appeal is read the district judge's explanation for the decision under challenge. It is impossible to evaluate the challenge--sometimes impossible even to understand it--without knowing why the district court acted as it did. See Hill v. Porter Memorial Hospital, 90 F.3d 220, 225-26 (7th Cir.1996). What the appellant's brief says about the reasons for the decision under review may be incomplete or slanted; it is essential to get the district court's explanation in its own words. Yet many appellate judges read the briefs without having access to the record. Half of the judges of the court live outside Chicago, where the records are kept, and those who reside in Chicago may read the briefs at home. To prevent a waste of time while judges secure the opinion or explanation (and then reacquaint themselves with the case), counsel must furnish the necessary materials. Rule 30(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the appellant to provide "the judgment, order or decision in question". Spotty compliance with this rule implied that many lawyers were unaware of it, others understood it to cover only a document with the word "opinion" at the top, and still others believed that if they attached the judgment they did not have to include the opinion. To ensure ready availability of the district court's reasoning, we adopted Circuit Rule 30:
(a) Contents. The appellant shall submit, bound with the main brief, an appendix containing the judgment or order under review and any opinion, memorandum of decision, findings of fact and conclusions of law, or oral statement of reasons delivered by the trial court or administrative agency upon the rendering of that judgment, decree, or order.
(b) Additional Contents. The appellant shall also include in an appendix:
(1) Copies of any other opinions or orders in the case that address the issues sought to be raised.
(2) Copies of any opinions or orders in the case rendered by magistrates or bankruptcy judges that address the issues sought to be raised.
(3) Copies of all opinions, orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered in the case by administrative agencies (including their administrative law judges). This requirement applies whether the original review of the administrative decision is in this court or was conducted by the district court.
(4) An order concerning a motion for new trial, alteration or amendment of the judgment, rehearing, and other relief sought under Rules 52(a) or 59, Fed.R.Civ.P.
(5) Any other short excerpts from the record, such as essential portions of the pleading or charge, disputed provisions of a contract, pertinent pictures, or brief portions of the transcript, that are important to a consideration of the issues raised on appeal.
(6) The documents in (b) may also be placed in the appendix bound with the brief if these documents when added to the required appendix in (a) do not exceed fifty pages.
(c) Statement that All Required Materials are in Appendix. The appendix to each appellant's brief shall contain a statement that all of the materials required by parts (a) and (b) of this rule are included. If there are no materials within the scope of parts (a) and (b) of this rule, counsel shall so certify.
This supplements Fed.R.App. P. 30(a) in several ways: (i) it specifies that counsel must furnish not only judgments and orders but also "findings of fact and conclusions of law, or oral statement of reasons delivered by the trial court or administrative agency"; (ii) it demands not only the explanations directly supporting the judgment but also "[c]opies of any other opinions or orders in the case that address the issues sought to be raised" and "portions of the transcript that are important to a consideration of the issues", which includes (for example) explanations for evidentiary rulings, if those rulings come under attack in this court; (iii) it requires counsel to certify compliance. Because the clerk's office does not know which materials in a given case are required by this rule, the certificate required by Circuit Rule 30(c) is the key to filing a brief. The clerk's office will reject any brief lacking the required statement, but if the representation is present the clerk's office will not look behind it.
An appellant who files the brief with the aid of a false representation is at risk of summary affirmance. See, e.g., Urso v. United States, 72 F.3d 59, 61 (7th Cir.1995); Mortell v. Mortell Co., 887 F.2d 1322, 1327 (7th Cir.1989). This severe penalty is justified in part by the vital function of Rule 30 and in part because a default cannot be inadvertent. A lawyer unaware of Circuit Rule 30 will find out about it when the clerk's office returns the brief for lack of the Rule 30(c) statement and counsel gets a chance to fix the problem. The presence of a Rule 30(c) certificate assures the court that counsel was aware of and complied with the rule. We expect that lawyers will execute formal assurances only after doing their utmost to make them truthful; a false representation to a court is a serious delict.
A client aggrieved by summary affirmance in a civil case may obtain recompense from the errant lawyer. See Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 396-97, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1499, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); United States v. 7108 West Grand Avenue, 15 F.3d 632 (7th Cir.1994). In criminal and immigration cases, however, money does not supply a way to balance the accounts between client and counsel. We have therefore declined to dismiss or affirm in these cases, although we have occasionally chastised counsel along the way. See Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d 1036, 1039 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Gomez, 24 F.3d 924, 928-30 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1068 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. White, 888 F.2d 490, 495-96 (7th Cir.1989). A reprimand has been the response of choice in some civil cases too, when affirmance seemed an excessive sanction--or was no sanction, because the appeal had no hope of success. E.g., Hill, supra; Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1219, 1224 (7th Cir.1995).
Risk of dismissal has produced substantial compliance in civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.M. v. Butler
...1327 (7th Cir.1989), or imposition of a penalty on the offending lawyer, including a public rebuke and fine. See, e.g., In re Galvan, 92 F.3d 582 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Evans, 131 F.3d 1192 (7th Cir.1997). Although we will not dismiss this appeal, when we finish our work we will r......
-
U.S. v. Clark
...Circuit Rule 30 yet falsely certify compliance....”); United States v. Rogers, 270 F.3d 1076, 1084–85 (7th Cir.2001); In re Galvan, 92 F.3d 582, 584–85 (7th Cir.1996). The rule is unambiguous, and Finn does not contend otherwise. He chalks up his noncompliance to his limited experience prac......
-
Kunz v. Defelice
...E.g., United States v. White, 472 F.3d 458, 465-66 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Evans, 131 F.3d 1192 (7th Cir. 1997); In re Galvan, 92 F.3d 582 (7th Cir.1996)." 507 F.3d at 1096. We return to this topic at the end of the opinion. For now, we observe only that the appellate record includ......
-
U.S.A. v. Rogers
...in Rogers's case--while imposing sanctions on the lawyer. The normal sanction is a public rebuke and a fine of $1,000. See In re Galvan, 92 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 1996). See also, e.g., United States v. Evans, 131 F.3d 1192 (7th Cir. At oral argument we asked counsel to explain the false statem......