In Re: William Hermesmeyer
688 F. App'x 300
5th Cir.2017Background
- Assistant Public Defender Williams Hermesmeyer represented a defendant who pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry after deportation and objected in sentencing proceedings.
- At sentencing the judge asked whether Hermesmeyer’s objections related to a potential sentence above the top of the advisory guideline range; Hermesmeyer refused to give a direct yes/no answer, insisting his prior statement sufficed.
- The court repeatedly demanded an answer, warned of contempt and Rule 57.8(b) discipline, and after Hermesmeyer persisted in declining to respond, imposed a $500 fine under N.D. Tex. Local Criminal Rule 57.8(b) for “conduct unbecoming” and failure to comply with a court order.
- Hermesmeyer filed a post-hearing explanation arguing his answer would have been incomplete or misleading if limited to yes or no; the district court refused to rescind the sanction and Hermesmeyer paid the fine and appealed.
- The district court later filed a supplemental order describing prior instances of what it viewed as evasive or disruptive conduct by Hermesmeyer to provide context for the sanction; the Fifth Circuit considered that order because it aided appellate review.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Hermesmeyer’s conduct violated the local rule and whether the $500 fine was an abuse of discretion, and it affirmed the sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may sanction an attorney under Local Crim. R. 57.8(b) without an explicit bad-faith finding | Hermesmeyer: sanctions require a showing of bad faith when punishment is imposed | Government/District Court: sanctions under a local rule need not include a bad-faith finding | Held: No bad-faith finding required for sanctions under Local Rule 57.8(b); circuit precedent allows rule-based discipline without that finding |
| Whether Hermesmeyer’s refusal to answer the court’s question violated Local Crim. R. 57.8(b) (conduct unbecoming/failure to comply) | Hermesmeyer: a yes/no answer would have been incomplete or inaccurate; candor required his response | Court: attorney must comply with court orders and answer; refusal to answer can be failure to comply | Held: Hermesmeyer’s conduct violated the Local Rule — his refusal to answer and prior evasive responses supported discipline |
| Whether the district court could rely on its supplemental order filed after notice of appeal | Hermesmeyer: supplemental order filed after appeal divested district court of jurisdiction | Court/District Court: supplemental order only provided context and did not alter grounds; it aided appellate review | Held: Supplemental order may be considered because it aids the court of appeals in evaluating the sanction |
| Whether the $500 fine was an abuse of discretion | Hermesmeyer: sanction disproportionate/minor procedural error should receive lesser remedy | District Court: prior warnings and opportunity to show cause justify sanction level | Held: No abuse of discretion; $500 fine was not excessive given warnings and opportunity to explain |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sealed Appellant, 194 F.3d 666 (5th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing attorney-discipline orders)
- United States v. Brown, 72 F.3d 25 (5th Cir. 1995) (review of sanctions and discretion standards)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 824 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2016) (clarifying abuse-of-discretion review language)
- In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (U.S. 1985) (definition of conduct unbecoming a member of the bar and disciplinary standards)
- Bluitt v. Arco Chem. Co., 777 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1985) (failure to heed warnings supports sanctions)
- In re Greene, 213 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2000) (vacating overly harsh local-rule fine where first infraction lacked prior admonition)