Zorn v. Smith
19 A.3d 112
| Vt. | 2011Background
- Zorn, proceeding pro se, challenged a lawyer’s handling of his prior judgment against S. Scott Smith for legal malpractice.
- The Rutland Superior Court sanctioned Zorn under Rule 11 for filing repetitive, baseless submissions and limited his future filings to attorney-licensed submissions in this case.
- The court’s sanction aimed to deter abuse while preserving access to the courts, specifying the restriction apply to this case and allowing indigence showings.
- Zorn previously obtained a $26,108 judgment (plus interest) against Smith in 2001; attempts to collect through post-judgment processes continued through 2009.
- Zorn’s subsequent filings between 2008–2009 alleged conspiracies and sought default or summary relief, which the court found to lack legal or evidentiary support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctioning limiting pro se filings is appropriate | Zorn | Smith | Sanction valid but limited to this case |
| Whether the sanction should preclude indigence challenge | Zorn | Court should bar pro se filings; no indigence relief | Must allow indigence demonstration; modify to permit pro se claim of lack of means |
| Whether the sanction was the least restrictive necessary | Zorn | Sanction justified given history of vexatious filings | Sanction upheld but narrowed to this case and derivatives; contemplate reconsideration for indigence |
| Whether a prefiling injunction burdens access to courts unconstitutionally | Zorn | Protect court resources and deter abuse | Court may restrict access but not bar, requiring narrow tailoring in this case |
| Whether the order should extend to all future pro se filings | Zorn | Broad injunction necessary | Overbroad as written; limited to this case and related claims; allow reconsideration if broader impact shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir.1986) (factors for prefiling injunction and need to deter vexatious litigation)
- In re Delaney, 157 Vt. 247 (1991) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 11 sanctions)
- Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir.1986) (prefiling injunction and sanctions framework; less restrictive alternatives exist)
- De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir.1990) (limits on court resources; reasonableness of sanctions)
- Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1995) (analysis of access to courts and remedies; caution with pro se)