Devin Nunes' Lawyer, Steven Biss, Finally Gets Sanctioned In Wacky Defamation Case

from the pay-up dept

Back in April, we wrote about how Steven Biss, who has become infamous for his flurry of frivolous defamation lawsuits -- many of which are on behalf of Congressional Representative Devin Nunes as well as an odd collection of wacky people in Nunes' orbit -- had lost yet another case, but that the court had rejected sanctioning Biss. That didn't last long. That ruling was in the 4th Circuit appeals court in the case Biss brought on behalf of Russian-born academic Svetlana Lokhova against a Cambridge academic, Stefan Halper, and a variety of media organizations. I'm not going to recount all the details of the case again. You can read those in our original post. Just know that it seemed to be a pretty obvious SLAPP suit. Much of it was filed after the statute of limitations had passed, on statements that were clearly not defamatory, and, in at least one case, appearing to sue the wrong party. However, the District Court judge and the Appeals Court both found that while Biss had a long history of bad behavior in court, they didn't want to take the further step of sanctioning him. Yet. Though both courts made it clear that further shenanigans could change that.

I will give you just one guess what happened next. And I'm sure you'll get it right.

I had somehow missed that while Biss/Lokhova were getting benchslapped in that case, they had decided it would be a good idea to file another frivolous SLAPP suit against Halper. This case involved claims that Halper had somehow defamed Lokhova (again) and tortiously interfered with her publishing contract, regarding a book she was publishing all about Steven Halper (which Halper insists itself is defamatory towards him). Halper had sent a letter to the publisher and distributor of the book arguing that Lokhova's book was defamatory, and then Biss/Lokhova sued Halper again. They failed to mention that they had already sued Halper, and that the cases were related, which probably didn't make the court very happy in the first place.

Judge Leonie Brinkema seems to have had enough. Recognizing that her original lenient order not to issue sanctions in the last case was ineffective, she has finally recognized that Biss seems unwilling to back down. So she has now order both Biss and Lokhova to pay Halper's legal fees in this case.

In the May 5, 2021 hearing on defendant's Motion for Sanctions, the Court found that Halper's counsel's letters were protected by absolute litigation privilege, making the filing of the pending lawsuit by Lokhova and Biss frivolous and without merit.

It goes on, dismantling each and every argument by Biss, and also notes that much of the argument seems to be an attempt to relitigate the other case that they had already lost:

The rest of plaintiff's arguments in her opposition to the Motion for Sanctions amounted to another defamatory attack on Halper and attempts to relitigate Lokhova I, including her attachment of redacted FBI papers purportedly showing Halper lying to the FBI....

The judge then recites a very long list of examples of bad behavior in court, including admonishment and sanctions by other judges.

Bis also has an extensive history of being admonished and sanctioned by courts around the country. In this district, Biss was warned not to engage in ad hominem attacks. Steele v. Goodman.... Another judge admonished Biss for conduct unbefitting an officer of the Court. Nunes v. WP Co. LLC.... Biss was sanction and required to pay the opposing party's attorneys' fees under Rule 11 for making "objections contrary to settled law":

Counsel for Plaintiff's objections contrary to settled law are particularly troubling given this Court's previous admonishment, in its May 29, 2020 Memorandum Opinion, that Mr. Biss "ensure that all positions, including those in briefing and in support of discovery, 'are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law' . . . [f]ailure to do so could result in sanctions."

Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Gloucester Cty..... In dismissing a RICO suit for its "conclusory allegations," yet another judge in the Eastern District of Virginia admonished Biss that any amended complaints must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Nunes v. Fusion GPS.... Biss has also been sanction in other districts, including in an Iowa federal district court, where the judge described Biss's personal attacks in a complaint as "immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous," with "no bearing on this case," and "prejudicial to [defendant]" with "criminal overtones," Nunes v. Lizza.... and by a district judge in the Southern District of Florida who imposed sanctions on Biss under the Florida anti-SLAPP statute because his lawsuit "was without merit" and arose out of free speech in connection with a public issue. Bongino v. Daily Beast Co. LLC.... Recently, Biss was sanctioned in the District of Maryland and required to pay defendant $21,437.50 to reimburse it for its attorneys' fees after Biss filed a meritless amended complaint. Harvey v. Cable News Network Inc....

It's probably not a good sign when the judge lists off all the times you've been sanctioned. Especially after warning you to tread lightly in an earlier, related case. So the following does not come as a surprise at the end of the ruling:

Considering Biss's experience as an attorney, long history of sanctionable conduct, this Court's specific warnings in Lokhova I that further frivolous actions against Halper could result in sanctions, the Fourth Circuit's comment about joining the chorus of other courts that have sanctioned Biss, defendant placing Biss on explicit Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 warning, and the frivolousness of this complaint, the Court infers an improper purpose for bringing this civil action. Accordingly, sanctions in the form of dismissal of the complaint are not sufficient to deter Biss from continued improper litigation practices, and an award of defendant's reasonable attorneys' fees for work done in this civil action after defense counsel issued his Rule 11 letter is appropriate. In the words of the Fourth Circuit, this Court has "join[ed] the chorus in sanctioning attorney Biss."....

The judge even highlights Biss' claim that the attorney's fees amount that Halper's lawyers asked for was too high, first noting that what they asked for is actually below the range established in earlier cases, and pointing out that Biss arguing that they don't have experience in this type of litigation is "meritless."

Also, this:

Plaintiff and her counsel also argue that the number of hours defense counsel spent on this civil action was inappropriate because this civil action involved a simple, "not difficult or complex" application of the litigation privilege. That characterization of hte issue is contradicted by the multiple arguments plaintiff raised in her 15-page opposition to defendant's Motion for Sanctions.

Basically, don't file crazy long and complex arguments only to then turn around and insist that the defendant's lawyers spent too much time having to deal with your arguments. The Court then decides that the sanctions should be for Biss and Lokhova to be jointly responsible for paying $33,875 in legal fees. Frankly, this seems low. And even though the Court says it chose this number to "deter further frivolous lawsuits," I'm not convinced that will work (see the list of sanctions earlier...). At some point, some court is going to need to go even further.

It's also interesting to see the Court make both Biss and Lokhova jointly responsible for the sanctions:

Lokhova obviously chose Biss to represent her in Lokhova I, must have been aware of the rhetoric he used in that complaint, and was in court when this Court admonished Biss, yet chose to retain Biss and authorize him to file this groundless new lawsuit. She is, therefore, also properly subject to this sanction.

It would be nice to see Biss finally stop filing frivolous lawsuits, but previous sanctions haven't seemed to help. And, of course underlying all of this, there's still the open question of who is paying Biss' fees in all of these lawsuits. That remains unanswered.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, devin nunes, sanctions, slapp, stefan halper, steven biss, svetlana lokhova, vexatious lawsuits


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 9:54am

    The amount of that punishment will not be enough to deter him from his bullshit. The next court to sanction him⁠—and there will be another one, of that I have no doubt⁠—needs to tack on an extra zero to the end of whatever amount they deem “sufficient”. Only after the courts start hitting him in the wallet hard enough to make his clients stop paying for his incompetence will he ever even think about changing his ways.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 11:18am

      Re:

      It's like the fines that large companies occasionally get slapped with for egregious behavior, it doesn't matter how large the number is if it's still only a fraction of what the person/companies gained from the actions they're being fined for. So long as it's still profitable for him to act like this he has no reason whatsoever to change and no amount of sanctions or warnings of sanctions will change that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pixelation, 14 Jul 2021 @ 7:05pm

      Re:

      If the courts were more willing to hand out serious sanctions, we would have to hear about shitty lawyers like Biss far less often. What a tragedy that would be for the popcorn industry!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 9:55am

    Suggestion for Biss…

    Maybe Steven Biss could join Richard Liebowitz and Charles Harder in representing Donald Trump in his frivolous lawsuit against the social media companies!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 9:56am

    I'm still baffled judges allow shenanigans like that to go on for so long.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 10:50am

      'Or what, you'll wag your finger at me again?'

      Judges seem to be insanely hesitant to bring the hammer down and will bend over backwards to pretend that the lawyer in front of them with a history of lying and abusing the system is really a misunderstood paragon of virtue who maybe made a few minor mistakes on accident, and you'd better believe the sleazy lawyers have picked up on that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 9:58am

    "Recognizing that her original lenient order not to issue sanctions in the last case was ineffective"

    QI but for shitty lawyers...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 10:31am

    Sanction-lite

    Sanction me once, shame on me.....sanction me twice, meh and keep doing the stupid

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 10:40am

    'Oh noes, not .001% of my profits.'

    When a lawyer engages in such egregious behavior that courts are actually willing to issue sanctions rather than stern looks and wagged fingers, and it's so bad that they garner a history of sanctions it's pretty clear that minor financial penalties are being shrugged off as just a cost of the job and it's time to break out the bigger guns.

    Stop dinging them with wagged fingers and minor financial penalties and start making it clear that that their ability to practice law is on the line and they either shape up immediately or start looking for a new job because they won't be allowed to continue in their current one. Either bring the hammer down or stop bothering because at this point it seems pretty clear that the lawyers abusing the system know full well that they can get away with just about anything for a long time before even minor punishments are handed out and are taking full advantage of that fact.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 14 Jul 2021 @ 11:13am

    It's reputation-building

    We have a tomcat that essentially loses every fight with the other cats here, taking quite worse damage than any he attacks. Frequently enough he doesn't care. So the others steer clear.

    And in the end, that's what counts. In a loser-pays-all system, that would not work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 12:28pm

      Re: It's reputation-building

      In a loser-pays-all system, that would not work.

      Or why we need those types of anti-SLAPP laws in the first place: so the loser gets to pay the legal fees!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 14 Jul 2021 @ 1:09pm

        Re: Re: It's reputation-building

        Like sanctions, those rules are applied too irregularly to fundamentally change the pay-per-nuisance business model. They just slightly raise the rates.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Bobvious, 15 Jul 2021 @ 5:13am

        Re: Re: It's reputation-building

        This lawyer needs to be sanctioned into the aBiss.

        Top lawyering? Nope, totally aBissmal.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 14 Jul 2021 @ 5:15pm

    It would be nice to see Biss finally stop filing frivolous lawsuits,

    Why do you hate my popcorn futures so much?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ryuugami, 14 Jul 2021 @ 7:43pm

    Biss arguing that [Halper's lawyers] don't have experience in this type of litigation

    That's quite a self-own. "I'm such a terrible lawyer, and the case was so frivolous, a bunch of noobs with zero experience smoked me."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Michael P Stein (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:14am

    Maybe it's time for a criminal investigation

    If someone is surreptitiously paying Virginia attorney Stephen Biss to stir up litigation, Virginia Code 18.2-451 and -452 defines a Class 1 misdemeanor known as barratry.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat

Warning: include(/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_discord_chat.inc): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_discord_chat.inc' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/..') in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.