2:22-cv-00977
E.D. Pa.Aug 29, 2025Background
- The City of Philadelphia filed a motion for sanctions against Attorney Nick Brustin, plaintiff’s counsel in a civil rights action brought by Termaine Hicks.
- The City alleged that Brustin repeatedly made knowingly false accusations of attorney misconduct, including claims that defense counsel made misrepresentations to the court, suborned perjury, and acted with racial bias.
- The conduct at issue occurred during and surrounding trial proceedings, with both on-record and off-record exchanges referenced in the motion.
- Defense counsel argued that Brustin’s actions violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and established trial decorum standards.
- The motion requested either revocation of Brustin’s pro hac vice status or, at a minimum, a formal admonition and directive to cease unprofessional conduct.
- The court’s order provided two potential rulings: either granting the motion in full (revocation and admonition) or in part (admonition only, due to the timing of the motion post-jury submission).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s conduct warranted sanctions, including revocation of pro hac vice status | Likely argued conduct did not rise to sanctionable level; accusations were justified | Conduct was egregious, false, and warranting strong sanctions | Motion granted; pro hac vice revoked (alt: admonition only) |
| Whether claims of attorney misconduct and racism were factual | Defended as good faith allegations based on trial events | Factually incorrect and unsupported by record | Found false and unprofessional; admonition issued |
| Applicability of Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct | Argued compliance or no knowing violation | Pointed to violations of Rules 8.4(a) and (c) | Court held violations occurred |
| Whether court should exercise inherent powers to sanction | Possibly argued for restraint or lesser sanctions | Asserted necessity to maintain civility and court decorum | Court exercised inherent authority to sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. City of Providence, 301 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D.R.I. 2004) (revocation of pro hac vice status for misrepresentations to the court; relevant to sanctioning authority)
- Young v. City of Providence ex rel. Napolitano, 404 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2005) (First Circuit reversal addressing summary statements and Rule 11 obligations)