In Re Spikes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defamation suit predicated in part on a complaint made to bar counsel, covered by an analogous immunity provision, was frivolous in violation of Rule 3.1
• noting that counsel’s actions impeded investigation and necessitated “extensive briefing of the various positions over the course of 12 months” and additional pleadings
• filing a frivolous defamation claim based on privileged complaint to Bar Counsel indirectly interfered with Bar Counsel’s ongoing ethical investigation and burdened the court in more than a de minimis way
• relying on Black’s Law Dictionary to interpret “absolute[] privilege[]” 10 in Section 19(a)
• frivolous actions “‘waste[d] the time and resources of this court’” and “‘cause[d] appellees unwarranted delay and added expense’” (quoting Slater v. Biehl, 793 A.2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. 2002)
• “A [proceeding or issue] is frivolous if, after undertaking [an objective 42 appraisal of merit], a reasonable attorney would have concluded that there was not even a ‘faint hope of success on the legal merits’ of the action being considered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).