## Facts

- Laura Kraemer hired attorney Mark D. Lawton, a newly admitted lawyer, to bring claims arising from an alleged dispossession of her home and property involving Grant County officials and Steven Baker’s parents, William and Betty Baker.
- Kraemer reported that after her fiancé Steven Baker died, the Bakers removed most items from the rented home; Kraemer contacted the sheriff’s department.
- Kraemer alleged Sheriff Herbert Hottenstein sided with the Bakers, told her they were “within their rights,” and directed her to surrender keys and leave.
- Before filing suit, Lawton obtained a detailed written narrative from Kraemer, pursued an administrative claim against the county (denied), and retained a private investigator who could neither confirm nor refute Kraemer’s account.
- Lawton filed a federal lawsuit asserting civil-rights and related claims; the complaint survived a motion to dismiss but the defendants later obtained summary judgment.
- The district court granted defendants’ request for Rule 11 sanctions and ordered Lawton, personally, to pay $3,000 to William and Betty Baker for filing without a reasonable prefiling factual investigation.
- Lawton appealed the sanctions order.

## Issues

1. Whether Lawton’s prefiling factual investigation was unreasonable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, justifying personal monetary sanctions.
2. How “reasonable inquiry” under Rule 11 applies when much potentially corroborating information is primarily in the defendants’ control and is likely obtainable only through discovery.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the Rule 11 sanctions order.
- The court held that, in context, Lawton’s prefiling efforts satisfied Rule 11’s “reasonable inquiry” requirement.
- The court concluded that sanctions were improper where counsel pursued available preliminary steps and the remaining verification depended largely on information accessible through discovery.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 11 requires that an attorney certify that factual contentions are supported to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry.
- Reasonableness of a prefiling inquiry is context-specific, including considerations such as time to investigate, permissible reliance on the client, and whether discovery is needed to obtain key facts.
- Rule 11 does not require counsel to prove the case or obtain definitive corroboration before filing when the facts are plausibly alleged and further confirmation reasonably depends on discovery.
- Sanctions are disfavored where counsel undertakes measured investigative steps and there is no indication the filing was frivolous or made with knowledge that the factual account was false.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that counsel’s prefiling investigation—based on a detailed client narrative, an attempted administrative resolution, and an inconclusive independent investigation—was reasonable under Rule 11, particularly because additional corroboration was likely obtainable only through discovery; it therefore reversed the monetary sanctions imposed on counsel.


Kraemer v. Grant County, 892 F.2d 686 (7th Cir. 1990)