The National Law Journal reports:

I thought they were well framed, but every question drew an objection. “How are you employed?” “Objection! Assumes facts.” “Are you employed?” “Objection! Vague.” “Do you have a job?” “Objection! Misleading, confusing, vague and ambiguous.” A bigger man would have let it go, but “Dick,” I asked opposing counsel, “when your parents named you, how did they know?”

Lawyers will be lawyers; we have all played the game. It’s hard to stay awake at a deposition if you don’t lob in an objection now and then. So I’ve done it; I’ve had it done to me. I’ve rejoined with colloquy; I’ve been colloquyed right back in my face. It’s just part of litigation.

Not so fast. On July 28, U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett in Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories imposed sanctions against a lawyer who made repeated deposition objections. Significantly, the judge in the Iowa case imposed sanctions sua sponte — not only did opposing counsel not complain, but he declined to take a position when the court raised the issue on his own.

Bennett does not have a hair trigger. In 20 years, he has imposed sanctions on a lawyer less than five times. It was not personal. Bennett went out of his way to laud the trial skills of the lawyer he sanctioned; he described the sanctioned lawyer’s partner who argued against sanctions as “one of the best trial lawyers I have ever encountered.” Clearly, he was stirred to unusual action. It is a must-read opinion.

The ink is hardly dry. The sanctioned lawyer’s firm has announced its intention to appeal. After all, in our system, all persons are presumed to know the law — except of course trial judges, for whom our system has provided courts of appeal. Bennett’s decision may or may not stand.

Read more here (log-in required).