A Recent Ruling from a Case We Handled
In a recent Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, in the case of Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL, the court issued sweeping sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys in a case in which Chenoweth Law Group represented the defendants. The ruling dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, struck their summary judgment briefs from the record, ordered them to pay the defendants’ attorney fees, ordered their out-of-state attorney to pay $15,500 in sanctions to the court, and ordered their local Oregon counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him for failing to meaningfully participate in the case.
While the outcome resolved the dispute decisively, the broader value of the decision lies in what it clarifies for attorneys practicing in Oregon federal court—including those serving as local counsel for out-of-state lawyers admitted pro hac vice.
The Court’s Focus: Responsibility Cannot Be Delegated
The record showed repeated violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the District of Oregon’s Local Rules, including the submission of briefing that cited 15 non-existent cases to the court and failed to comply with basic procedural requirements.
One of the many issues the court addressed was the role of local counsel who acts as a pro hac vice attorney for an out-of-state attorney. Although the court had earlier allowed plaintiffs’ local counsel to withdraw for professional considerations, the court later vacated that order after learning the full scope of the out-of-state counsel’s misconduct. Citing Local Rule 83-3, the court emphasized that local counsel must “meaningfully participate” in the case and cannot act as if that rule is a mere formality.
The court ordered former local counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him, underscoring that responsibility attaches to filings made while counsel remains of record—even where lead counsel is practicing pro hac vice.
Practical Guidance for Attorneys and Clients
This ruling offers several practical lessons:
- Local counsel must actively review and understand filings submitted on behalf of a client
- Association with out-of-state counsel does not dilute ethical or procedural obligations
- Withdrawal as local counsel may not insulate counsel from scrutiny for prior conduct
For clients—particularly business owners and fiduciaries involved in complex disputes—the decision reinforces the importance of engaging counsel who understand not only the substantive law, but also the court’s expectations around professionalism and compliance.
Why Courts Are Taking This Seriously
Federal courts rely on local counsel as a point of accountability and institutional knowledge. When that role is diminished, the risk of procedural error increases—often at the client’s expense.
In this case, the court made clear that it will enforce local rules to protect the integrity of the process, even when doing so requires revisiting earlier procedural rulings.
Takeaway
The lesson from this decision is straightforward: local counsel are accountable participants, not nominal sponsors. Attorneys practicing in Oregon federal court should treat that role with the level of engagement the rules require.
For clients, the ruling highlights why careful team structure and disciplined litigation practices matter—especially when disputes carry significant financial or reputational stakes.
