Anderson v. State Bar of California

sanctions serve many purposes — deterrence, punishment, compensation, streamlining dockets — but deterrence is the primary goal | county may be held hable for the acts of district attorney who entered into conspiracy with county sheriff, the ultimate repository of law enforcement power in the county | the other factors include (1) the reasonable of the opposing attorney's fees; (2) the minimum to deter; and (3) factors relevant to the severity of the Rule 11 violation | lhe other factors include (1) the reasonable of the opposing attorney's fees; (2) the minimum to deter; and (3) factors relevant to the severity of the Rule 11 violation | the appropriate sanction should be the least severe sanction adequate to deter and punish | “A good faith belief in the merit of an argument is not sufficient; the attorney’s belief must also be in accord with what a reasonable, competent attorney would believe under the circumstances.” | "Because of the unique structure of county government in Texas ... elected county officials ... hold virtually absolute sway over the particular tasks or areas of responsibility entrusted to him by state statute and is accountable to no one other than the voters for his conduct therein." | Rule 60(b) motion subject to abuse of discretion standard | court should limit discovery sanctions to the least destructive form | "Because of the unique structure of county government in Texas ... elected county officials ... hold virtually absolute sway over the particular tasks or areas of responsibility entrusted to him by state statute and is accountable to no one other than the voters for his conduct therein." | “Because of the unique structure of county government in Texas ... elected county officials ... hold virtually absolute sway over the particular tasks or areas of responsibility entrusted to him by state statute and is accountable to no one other than the voters for his conduct therein."