Prominent plaintiffs’ lawyers Tommy Girardi and Walter Lack have been successful in obtaining some eye-popping punitive damages awards in California. For example, in the Lockheed Litigation cases in the late 1990’s, Girardi won a jury verdict for $760 million in punitive damages. The award was later vacated on appeal, but it helped solidify Girardi’s reputation as a hugely successful trial lawyer.

Now it seems that Girardi and Lack themselves are in need of a good advocate. As we noted in a prior post, the Ninth Circuit appointed Judge Wallace Tashima to investigate whether Girardi, Lack, and others should be sanctioned or disbarred (the Ninth Circuit’s order actually used that term) for their involvement in pursuing a frivolous case against Dole Food Company and Shell Chemical Company.

In March, Judge Tashima issued a scathing report, recommending that the Ninth Circuit impose sanctions of $250,000 against Lack and his firm, $125,000 against Girardi and his firm, $10,000 against Paul A. Traina, and $5,000 against Sean A. Topp. Judge Tashima also recommended disciplinary actions against the lawyers involved, but that part of the order was filed under seal.

The Ninth Circuit has now issued this order (certified for publication), which explains that the lawyers involved did not object to Judge Tashima’s recommended monetary sanctions, but they objected to Judge Tashima’s disciplinary recommendations. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has decided to appoint an independent prosecutor to present evidence against the attorneys involved and make a recommendation regarding disciplinary sanctions. The monetary sanctions will be held in abeyance until the disciplinary issues are resolved.

This story has been largely ignored by the media, despite the fact that it involves some very high profile attorneys. Girardi hosts his own radio show and is a current member of the California Judicial Council.

The Legal Pad reports on a recent recommendation made by Judge Tashima of the Ninth Circuit that famed plaintiffs’ lawyers Tom Girardi and Walter Lack should be sanctioned roughly $400,000 for filing a frivolous appeal.

The Ninth Circuit today released an opinion in Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition. The opinion was written by Judge Fisher and joined by Judges Leavy and Berson. The opinion begins:

“At what all surely must hope is the conclusion of this long running litigation, we must address an issue of some importance under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 37(b) relating to the award of post-judgment interest to the plaintiffs-appellees on the punitive damages judgment they obtained against the defendants-appellants. This is a cautionary tale for all whose judgments on appeal are subject to the requirements of Rule 37(b). In an earlier appeal, we reduced the punitive damages because we concluded they were excessive under the Supreme Court’s Due Process Clause jurisprudence. We accordingly directed the district court on remand to enter a judgment for the damage amounts we specified, assuming the plaintiffs opted not to have a new trial. Because our mandate did not contain instructions about the allowance of post-judgment interest as required by Rule 37(b), we are now called upon to decide whether the district court had the authority to award post-judgment interest from the date of its original judgment, as modified in its final judgment, or only from the date of that final judgment. We hold that our failure to specify the accrual date for post-judgment interest in our mandate precluded the district court’s order that interest would run from the date of the original judgment.”

The court then finds that its failure to include the post-judgment interest was inadvertent and it recalled its mandate to provide for post-judgment interest from the date of the original judgment. The court cautioned in the future that Rule 37(b)’s rules regarding mandates will be followed and adhered to. This opinion provides a caution for lawyers to make sure they clearly remind the court to include such direction for awarding of post-judgment interest in the mandate when a judgment is reversed or no interest can be awarded by the district court.