Repeat TCPA litigator Andrew Perrong just had a very rough day in court related to machinations in connection with an effort to take a default against a Defendant.
Apparently–and this is just based on a review of the Court’s order–he tried to have a TCPA defendant to rack up fees contesting a default even though the Defendant had been in contact with him repeatedly.
And then he turned around and asked the Court to sanction the Defendant.
The Court was not amused.
Beginning the opinion with the well-worn phrase “The pot can’t call the kettle black” the Court decided that it is Perrong who may face sanctions– the Court set an order to show cause as to why Perrong shouldn’t have to pay some of the Defendant’s attorneys fees!
The rationale here is fascinating and well worth a read:
If any misconduct exists, it is Plaintiff’s decision to act with petulance rather than professionalism by ignoring communications from opposing counsel, filing a request for default judgment despite knowing that Defendants intended to answer, and forcing Defendants to “rack up billables” (Pl. Resp. at 8) in order to oppose Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment. Plaintiff’s behavior is gamesmanship of the lowest order.
Wow. That is just scathing.
But it gets even worse (better):
Plaintiff does not deserve to benefit from the flexibility usually afforded to pro se litigants. As a law student and habitual litigant with more legal experience, legal knowledge, and legal education than most pro se litigants, Plaintiff did not behave with the level of decorum and respect for this Court and his opposing counsel that he should know is required. Such behavior will not be tolerated by this Court. Plaintiff will be required to show cause as to why sanctions should not be granted in favor of the Defendants.
Holy smokes.
“Habitual litigant.” That one line is worth its weight in gold.
Word is that Perrong is, indeed, in law school and hopes to become an attorney soon. But with rulings like this out there his legal career may be crippled before it even begins.
Not smart (IMO.)
Word to the wise– litigants (and litigators) should always behave reasonably and with respect for their opponents and the Court.
The Czar has litigated thousands of cases and practiced for 20 years and has never been sanctioned or chastised by a Court. Yet I win, win win.
Why?
Good lawyers don’t have to stoop to dirty tricks to be victorious. Much the opposite. Good lawyers take reasonable positions. They are polite and well mannered. They are professional and wield the rules, law and –ultimately–the truth to their client’s good advantage as craftsman and artists, not as belligerents or combatants.
That’s not to say we don’t fight hard when necessary–advocate zealously, firmly and (at times) very forcefully for our client’s interests. But it is ALWAYS done respectfully and ethically… good lawyers are simply a guiding light that show the path toward truth. And, believe what you want of the legal profession, but in my experience every juror and judge out there just wants to get to the truth. Help them to get there and you will win. Try to trick them and you will lose.
And so it is that integrity, sincerity, and professionalism are so often the mark of great lawyers, while combative, deceptive and contentious lawyers rarely succeed in court (and do so despite their antics, and not because of them).
Hopefully Mr. Perrong heeds these notions as he leaves law school and sets out on his career.
For now, though we will keep a close eye on the outcome of this dispute. Chat soon.
Perrong v. DVD II Group, No. 23-361, 2023 WL 3229934 (E.D. Pa. May 3, 2023.)