Two of the most powerful law firms in the world have been ordered to pay $2 million in sanctions after a federal judge found they repeatedly withheld evidence during litigation.
Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued the sanctions order against attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Kirkland & Ellis.
The sanctions stem from discovery abuse in a False Claims Act suit that ultimately settled in the middle of trial, making the misconduct all the more striking.
What makes the ruling particularly damning is that Judge Treadwell had to sanction the firms not once, not twice, but three separate times for withholding evidence.
In his January order, Judge Treadwell made clear just how unusual and serious the repeated misconduct was, using pointed language to underscore his frustration with the firms involved.
“Never has the Court thrice-sanctioned a party for withholding evidence,” he wrote, adding that “at this point, the Court is not sure” what else to do about it.
The $2 million penalty will not flow into government coffers but will instead fund ethics and professionalism instruction at Georgia’s accredited law schools.
That destination carries its own implicit message, given that the firms being sanctioned sit at the very top of the Biglaw hierarchy and charge among the highest rates in the legal profession.
Skadden and Kirkland are two of the most prestigious and expensive firms in the world, making the nature of the misconduct especially notable given the professional responsibility standards they are expected to uphold.
Discovery abuse and evidence withholding are precisely the kind of conduct covered extensively in law school professional responsibility courses, adding a layer of irony to the sanctions being directed toward legal education.
The ruling serves as a stark reminder that even the most elite legal institutions are not immune from judicial rebuke when basic obligations around evidence and disclosure are not met.
Federal sanctions of this magnitude against firms of this stature are rare, and the case is likely to draw significant attention across the legal profession in the months ahead.