Background
Catherine G. Smith and Phillip W. Smith, as co-trustees of the Catherine G. Smith Trust, sued the United States for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. They alleged that the government took property for recreational-trail use under the National Trails System Act when the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use on December 19, 2024.
A September 2025 amended complaint added more than 60 plaintiffs, including eight people who had died before both the alleged taking and the amended complaint. Their deaths occurred between 2006 and December 15, 2024. Counsel later explained that she had used names appearing on recorded deeds instead of listing only the surviving spouses who had retained her, and she sought to correct the complaint.
After reviewing notices of death, the court ordered counsel Lindsay S.C. Brinton to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. Brinton characterized the inclusion of the deceased individuals as an inadvertent error that caused no prejudice and argued that she promptly corrected it.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Brinton violated RCFC 11 by filing and signing an amended complaint naming eight people whom she did not represent and who could not have authorized the lawsuit. Naming them as plaintiffs implicitly represented that they had retained counsel, consented to suit, and requested the pleaded relief. The court rejected the characterization of that conduct as a clerical error concerning names on deeds.
Applying an objective-reasonableness standard, the court concluded that the claims were frivolous because they lacked authorization and were filed without a reasonable inquiry. A simple review of counsel’s client files would have shown that the eight individuals had not engaged her. The court further held that RCFC 11 did not require proof of subjective bad faith merely because the sanctions proceeding began on the court’s initiative.
The court imposed a $4,000 penalty—$500 for each deceased individual—to be paid by Brinton without recourse to her clients. It also required her to complete six additional hours of continuing legal education on professional responsibility and legal ethics, send the decision to every plaintiff, and file notices documenting compliance.
Key Takeaways
- An attorney violates RCFC 11 by naming a person as a plaintiff without authority to represent that person, even if the inclusion resulted from relying on recorded ownership documents.
- Sua sponte sanctions under RCFC 11 are governed by objective reasonableness and do not require a showing of subjective bad faith.
- Correcting an unauthorized filing and showing that related surviving property owners were actual clients may mitigate the sanction, but does not eliminate the violation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that verifying each plaintiff’s identity, status, and authorization is a basic prefiling obligation, particularly in multi-plaintiff property cases. Counsel cannot assume that a record owner is a client or that representation of one spouse authorizes representation of another.
It also illustrates the range of sanctions available under RCFC 11. The Court of Federal Claims used both a monetary penalty and remedial directives—including ethics education and client notification—to deter similar filings and address the resulting burden on the court and opposing party.