APPENDIX C

of the 36 cases in which sanctions were imposed: 10 cases had sanctions imposed for having no basis in fact or law; 8 for persisting with a meritless claim; 5 for pursuing RICO claim for bad motive or improper purpose; 4 for abuse of discovery; 4 for bringing claims that were time barred; 4 for failure to conduct a reasonable prefiling inquiry, and 1 for bringing a frivolous appeal.

The sanctions imposed in the 36 Rule 11 violations ranged from $1,000 to $954,880.50. Two of the cases involved nonmonetary sanctions; 12 were for costs and attorneys' fees (dollar figures unpublished); 9 involved sanctions between $1,000 and $4,999; 5 were for sanctions between $5,000 and $9,999; 4 were between $10,000 and $19,999; 1 was between $20,000 and $39,000; 2 were between $40,000 and $50,000, and one was for $954,880.50.

of the 104 RICO cases in which Rule 11 sanctions were requested but denied: 59 were judged to have merit; 21 of the Rule 11 motions were premature; 9 were denied because the lawyer had conducted a reasonable prefiling inquiry; 8 were denied because the law is unsettled; 5 were denied because the claim was not brought for an improper purpose, and 4 were denied for other

IMPOSED 26%

JUNE 1989

C-iii

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Blakey, welcome.

STATEMENT OF G. ROBERT BLAKEY, PROFESSOR, NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL

Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity you've given me to testify. I come back to this committee as one who has worked for it last year and in the grand sense of things, against it when I worked on the other side of the Hill many years ago. So, in a way, I am returning home.

I have several documents here, one an oral presentation, and I would ask that you incorporate it in the record as if were read. I'm sure you've read it.

Mr. HUGHES. Without objection.

[The information appears in the appendixes.]

Mr. BLAKEY. I've also appended to that oral presentation three documents, one an analysis of the arguments for and against RICO, and I would ask that that be incorporated in the record.

Mr. HUGHES. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information appears in the appendixes.]

Mr. BLAKEY. Next, a study of the allegations of abuse in RICO cases, and I would ask that that be incorporated in the record. Mr. HUGHES. Without objection.

[The information appears in the appendixes.]

Mr. BLAKEY. And finally, a detail section-by-section analysis of pending legislation with suggested possible amendments and two alternative bills that you might consider, and I would ask that that be included in the record.

[The information appears in the appendixes.]

Mr. BLAKEY. In addition, I've heard the testimony here today by my good friend, former Congressman Harold Sawyer. I worked for him on the Assassinations Committee, and so when I say "good friend," I really mean it.

As it turns out, I was the attorney who prepared an amicus brief in the appeal that he referred to. As in many situations, when lawyers view facts, whether or not this was an abusive case is in the eye of the beholder.

One definition of an abusive case is any case brought against my client. Any case I bring is a good one.

I don't want to comment on what Mr. Sawyer said, but I would think that maybe it would be useful for your record if it incorporated the amicus brief in it I will send it to you. I think that might cast for your readers the comments of Mr. Sawyer in a more balanced light.

In addition, as it turns out, I am filing an amicus brief in the LILCO matter, too, representing the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. I would ask that that also appear in the record. It includes a full consideration of Judge Weinstein's opinion. I will also send you a copy of it.

Again, I would comment on my good friend Mr. Rakoff-again, we are friends-I have worked for him from time to time. What happened in LILCO-good or bad-is a lawyer's view. Another view is out there, and your record ought to include it.