Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Management
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-06368
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Management, Judge Furman ordered attorney Richard Liebowitz to explain possible failures to comply with earlier sanctions.
Richard Liebowitz and the Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC were required to provide further information about compliance with the earlier sanctions order. Defense counsel was permitted, but not required, to respond.
What happened
In Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Management, the court addressed compliance with an earlier order that imposed monetary and non-monetary sanctions on attorney Richard Liebowitz and his firm, the Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC. That earlier order required them to provide copies of the order to the firm’s clients and to file copies in pending and newly filed cases they brought.
Liebowitz later declared that he had completed those tasks by searching court records and checking the firm’s internal records. But in September 2020, he identified additional cases in which he or his firm had not filed the order and then complied late. The court also received correspondence raising questions about compliance.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered Liebowitz to file a sworn declaration by October 15, 2020, explaining how the cases were overlooked, describing how the firm’s client list was created and maintained, and addressing cases in which he or his firm acted as counsel without formally appearing. The order also required him to show cause regarding possible violations and whether the earlier order should be expanded; defense counsel could respond by October 21.
The detailed version
- Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Management · No. 1:19-cv-06368
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 5, 2020
Background
The court had previously issued a June 26, 2020, opinion and order imposing monetary and non-monetary sanctions on Richard Liebowitz and the Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC. Among other requirements, that order directed Liebowitz and his firm to:
- serve a copy of the order on every current firm client and have Liebowitz file a declaration confirming service; - file a copy of the order on the docket of every currently pending case brought by Liebowitz or his firm and have Liebowitz file a declaration confirming those filings; and - file a copy of the order in any action filed within one year after the June 26 order.
The court had denied Liebowitz’s request to stay the earlier order while he appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later also denied a stay request.
Compliance Concerns
On July 27, 2020, Liebowitz filed a declaration stating that he had emailed the order to every client identified on an internal firm email list and had filed the order in all currently pending cases brought by him or his firm. He said he identified the cases by searching the federal court records for cases in which he was counsel of record, checking the firm’s internal records for cases where he was not counsel of record, and comparing those results with the firm’s case-management system.
In declarations filed on September 21 and September 29, however, Liebowitz identified cases brought by him or his firm in which he had not filed the order and had complied only later. The court also received two letters and an email concerning compliance. One voicemail raised similar concerns, but the court gave it no weight because the information was second-hand and the caller did not want further involvement.
Order
The court ordered Liebowitz to file a sworn declaration by October 15, 2020. The declaration had to explain how the cases identified in September were overlooked despite the process described in his July declaration, and it had to describe steps taken or planned to find any other such cases.
The declaration also had to explain in detail how the firm’s internal client email list was compiled, who maintained it, how and how often it was updated, and whether any clients might not appear on it. Liebowitz had to describe steps taken or planned to identify any such clients.
Finally, the court required Liebowitz to respond to a letter from defense attorney David E. Hudson by identifying cases in which Liebowitz or his firm acted as counsel, directly or indirectly, without filing a formal notice of appearance and without filing or sharing the earlier order. If such cases existed, Liebowitz had to show cause—give a legally sufficient explanation—why that conduct should not be treated as a violation of the earlier order. He also had to show cause why the earlier order should not be modified to cover every case in which he or his firm was involved as counsel, even without a formal appearance. Defense counsel could respond by October 21, but was not required to do so. No reply was allowed without the court’s permission.
This order addressed compliance with an earlier sanctions order and did not decide the underlying dispute between Arthur Usherson and Bandshell Artist Management.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.