In recent months, judges on Colorado’s federal trial court have delivered stinging rebukes to lawyers – and in some instances, monetary penalties – for their behavior in the course of litigation.

Although it is typical for judges to deliver critiques of lawyers’ legal arguments, it is less common for them to lay down accusations of unprofessionalism and threaten to report attorney misconduct, or even to go so far as imposing punishment for misbehavior.

Since the spring, two district judges and one magistrate judge have notified the parties in three cases that their conduct was borderline, or fully, inappropriate.

‘Smacks of unprofessionalism’

James Corey Goode, who describes himself as a motivational speaker and influencer from Broomfield, sued three business associates for trademark infringement and embezzlement, among other claims. In January, Goode’s attorney sought financial sanctions against the defendants’ counsel.

Valerie Yanaros, who represents Goode, accused the defendants of leaking Goode’s videotaped deposition and causing it to be posted on YouTube. Yanaros maintained Goode’s deposition was confidential and if the defendants had a problem with that designation, they should take it up with the judge.

She also claimed the defendants’ attorney, Lenden F. Webb, “wasted” nearly two hours during a videotaped deposition of defendant Adrienne Youngblood. Yanaros cited multiple instances of Webb appearing to coach his client, only for Yanaros to complain he was behaving improperly.

“Let’s go off the record so I can explain to her the difference between a guess and an estimate,” Webb said, referring to Youngblood.

“No, no. We’re not going off the record,” Yanaros responded. “I know you don’t regularly practice under the federal rules, but if you want to get them out and look at them again and review what is acceptable in a deposition.”

In another instance, Webb objected to Youngblood providing her birthdate, saying he was not going to permit his client to state her birthday or her social security number.

“I didn’t ask for her social. Counsel, what are you talking about?” Yanaros demanded.

In May, then-U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix reviewed Yanaros’ request for financial sanctions, with mixed results. She blasted Yanaros for claiming Goode’s deposition was confidential, when a previous directive put the burden on Yanaros to file a motion with the court if the defendants objected to confidentiality, which they did. Yanaros did not file a motion, so Goode’s deposition was not confidential.

“The public release of the video deposition of Mr. Goode smacks of unprofessionalism and is clearly a symptom of the animosity between the parties and their respective counsel,” Mix wrote. “Nevertheless, the Court cannot find based on the record before it that the release of the video was not permitted.”

She sided with Yanaros, however, on the claims that Webb acted inappropriately during Youngblood’s deposition.

“It is obvious from the examples provided that at least some of Defendants’ counsel’s objections/statements were legally incorrect and/or otherwise impermissible, such as when he coached the witness,” Mix wrote.

Yanaros originally sought $26,403 as compensation for Webb’s conduct, but Mix ruled that Yanaros had not justified her calculations. Yanaros then revised her request to roughly $13,000. On July 18, Mix ordered Webb to pay $6,690 as a sanction.

The case is Goode et al. v. Ramsaur et al.

‘Meaningless’ procedures

Eric King is suing several Federal Bureau of Prisons officials for assault and harassment he reportedly experienced. In March, King’s attorney submitted a motion for more time to respond to a filing from the government. Mix denied the request, noting the courtroom protocols of U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, who is presiding over the case, required the motion for an extension to be filed seven days earlier.

King’s attorney, Jenipher R. Jones, appealed Mix’s order to Sweeney. She blamed the defendants for “weaponizing court rules” and obstructing the lawsuit, then accused Sweeney of adopting procedures for her courtroom that are “meaningless.”

The protocols “are invalid as they are inconsistent with the federal rules and relevant precedent,” Jones wrote.

Sweeney was unimpressed. In an April 26 order, she rejected the notion that her courtroom standards are invalid and criticized Jones for casting blame elsewhere for not seeking a timely extension herself.

“Notably, rather than addressing her failure to follow this Court’s Local Rules or Practice Standards, counsel wastes several pages of her objection attacking Defendants’ behavior in this litigation, as if such alleged behavior is possibly relevant to the issue before the Court,” Sweeney wrote.

She also advised Jones to consult another provision in her courtroom procedures: that litigants should not spend time characterizing the behavior of the opposing party to the judge.

The case is King v. United States et al.

‘I know you are but what am I?’

A business dispute between the directors of a geothermal company morphed into a personal grudge match between the opposing sets of lawyers. An attorney for defendant Jennifer Pickering accused the other side of violating the court’s order by attempting to subpoena a witness beyond the deadline. Then, lawyers for plaintiffs Neil Peterson and Pentatherm LLC sought to kick Pickering’s lawyer off the case for an alleged ethical conflict of interest.

The language both sides used against each other was similarly hostile.

“STOP WITH THESE STUPID GAMES, JOSH,” Lema Barazi, the defendant’s attorney, wrote in an email.

“The lies continue,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers responded in a court filing.

In May, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez stepped in to state the obvious: there was a civility problem between the lawyers.

“Litigation by its nature involves some conflict, but counsel has taken this to the extreme,” he wrote. “From this, the Court can only conclude that this unbecoming exchange is the lawyerly equivalent of the familiar schoolyard refrain, ‘I know you are but what am I?’ Counsel should not have to be reminded that this proceeding is not the playground.”

Martínez threatened to report both sets of lawyers for misconduct if there was further “mud slinging.” He also slammed Barazi, the defendant’s lawyer, for using 11-point font in a court filing in contravention of Martínez’s rules, which require 12-point font.

“This apparent attempt to circumvent the Court’s page limits is not well-received and will not be tolerated in the future,” he wrote.

On July 18, Mix, the magistrate judge assigned to the case, imposed $1,087 in sanctions on Joshua Lax, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. She previously found Lax to be responsible for attempting to subpoena a witness beyond the deadline, and Lax’s attempt to justify his actions as timely fell flat.

“Plaintiffs’ argument in opposition,” Mix wrote, “is, at the very least, wrong-headed and at the worst disingenuous.”

The case is Peterson et al. v. Pickering.