## Facts

- Leslie Greer, a wheelchair user, attended her son’s football game at Berkner B stadium, owned and operated by Richardson Independent School District (RISD).
- Greer sued RISD under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, initially alleging exclusion from bleacher viewing and later adding other accessibility-related theories.
- The district court largely rejected Greer’s claims on summary judgment, granting only limited relief on a discrete ramp noncompliance issue.
- After prevailing on most merits issues, RISD sought attorneys’ fees against Greer’s counsel (Palmer D. Bailey and Kenneth D. Carden) under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
- The district court found counsel’s litigation conduct unreasonably multiplied the proceedings and ordered Bailey and Carden to pay excess fees jointly and severally.
- Greer’s counsel appealed the § 1927 fee award to the Fifth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing attorneys’ fees against Greer’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings.
2. Whether the district court erred in the amount of fees awarded and in imposing joint-and-several liability on counsel.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s § 1927 fee award.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding counsel’s conduct met § 1927’s standard.
- The court upheld the amount awarded and the joint-and-several allocation as within the district court’s discretion and tied to excess costs.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, an attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings may be required to personally satisfy the resulting excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
- Appellate review of § 1927 sanctions is for abuse of discretion, giving substantial deference to the trial court’s assessment of counsel’s conduct during the litigation.
- Sanctionable multiplication of proceedings may be supported by findings that counsel pursued claims or theories lacking legal or evidentiary support and engaged in conduct that prolonged discovery and motion practice beyond what was necessary.
- A § 1927 award must be tied to excess fees attributable to the sanctionable conduct, not automatically to all fees incurred in the case.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed § 1927 sanctions against the plaintiff’s attorneys, concluding the district court acted within its discretion in finding that counsel’s conduct unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings and in ordering payment of excess fees on a joint-and-several basis.


Greer v. Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist., 472 F. App’x 287 (5th Cir. 2012)