representing the government?
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Lawyers who violate Rule 11 can end up having to pay the apposing parties' attorneys' fees or other sanctions. So I've been wondering whether the U.S. Attorney's office might be violating Rule 11 by continuing to argue in favor of the travel ban order even though four federal judges have already upheld preliminary injunctions (which means there is a probability of success on the merits). But a represented party is exempt from sanctions for violating (2)(b). So if the party is the executive branch of the government but the lawyer is the US Attorney's office, which is also part of the government, would they be off the hook?
Any other lawyers want to weigh in on this?
= new reply since forum marked as read
