Page 25 - John Hundley 2014

Sharp Thinking

No. 119 Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. July 2014

Trial Courts Must Explain Rule 137

Sanction Denials, Appellate Panel Holds

By Darren M. Taylor, dtaylor@lotsharp.com, 618-242-0246

A trial judge must provide an explanation for a denial of a motion for sanctions brought pursuant
to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, the Appellate Court’s Fifth District has held.

Rule 137 requires an attorney of record, or a party who it not represented by
an attorney to sign pleadings, motions and other documents of a party filed with
the court. The signature constitutes a certificate that: (1) the document has
been read; (2) a reasonable inquiry established it is well grounded in fact and is
warranted by existing law; and (3) it is not interposed for any improper purpose,
such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost
of litigation (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137).

If a document is signed in violation of Rule 137, the court may impose
upon the person who signed it an appropriate sanction. Further, the rule
provides that “[w]here a sanction is imposed under this rule, the judge shall set
forth with specificity the reasons and basis of any sanction so imposed either in
the judgment order itself or in a separate written order” (emphasis added). Taylor

Specificity Now Is Required Beyond “Where A Sanction Is Imposed”

The specificity requirement no longer applies only in situations where the court actually imposes
sanctions. Even if the court chooses not to impose sanctions, specificity in its holding is now
required, at least in the Appellate Court’s Fifth District.

The court in Lake Environmental, Inc. v. Arnold, 2014 IL App (5th) 130109, held that a trial
judge’s order that stated, in full, “Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Rule 137 is denied” had
to be reversed and remanded for further explanation.

Ad Hoc, I think Not…

The decision in Lake Environmental was predicated on the heels of the Appellate Court’s Second
and Third District’s decades of precedence against ad hoc and speculative review.

The Appellate Court’s Second District recognized that when a trial judge rules on a motion for
sanctions pursuant to Rule 137, that judge must provide specific reasons for his or her ruling,
regardless of whether sanctions are granted or denied. North Shore Sign Co. v. Signature Design
Group, Inc., 237 Ill.App.3d 782 (2nd Dist. 1992). A reviewing court should not be put in the position
of making the trial court’s findings and should not be required to speculate as to which of the

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Sharp Thinking is an occasional newsletter of The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. addressing developments in the law which may be of interest. Nothing contained in Sharp
Thinking shall be construed to create an attorney-client relation where none previously has existed, nor with respect to any particular matter. The perspectives herein
constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation. To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal
advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.