Stockton attorney Kenneth Meleyco had a very bad day.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the award of $1500 in sanctions against him based on repeated violations of a court order regarding his argumentative opening statement in a civil case. Sucks, eh?
But at least the result of that trial was super good. He got a $2.7 million verdict against the defendant for his client, so that's a fat contingency fee, right?
Except the Court of Appeal reversed that as well, and entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict.
Some days it sucks to be you.
P.S. - Someone should eventually think -- or write about -- the provision under which Mr. Meleyco got sanctioned, CPP 177.5. That statute provides: "A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court." Just based on the statutory text contained in that last paragraph, you'd think that you couldn't be sanctioned under that provision for oral arguments, whether in front a judge or jury, right? After all, that's at least textually "advocacy" by counsel "before the court." But I looked up the relevant precedent on this point -- Mr. Meleyco didn't raise this argument, nor did the Court of Appeal address it -- and it seems like the California courts pretty much routinely hold that this exception doesn't apply when an attorney violates a court order, on the theory that once the judge hears your objection and then rules against you and tells you not to do it again, that's no longer "advocacy" since the court's already ruled against you. But not only is that, to me, not the common meaning of the word "advocacy," but it also seems to make the exception meaningless/superfluous, since the first sentence already says that you can be sanctioned only if you violate a lawful court order. So if violating a court order doesn't count as advocacy, then the exception for advocacy by definition never applies, since you can only be sanctioned in the first place if you've violated a court order. No?
