Unsolicited Order by Katherine Fraizer Sparks Calls for Sanction in Federal Court Case
By: Legal Affairs Staff on November 14, 2024
MEMPHIS, TN——
In a move that has raised eyebrows across Tennessee’s legal circles, yesterday, in Federal Court, Attorney Katherine Fraizer submitted a proposed court order without being requested to do so—a highly unusual step that has led Rev. Gerald Kiner, the plaintiff in the case, to seek further sanctions against her. Representing himself in his $25M lawsuit against the Shelby County Government and one of its officials, Kiner has characterized Fraizer’s unsolicited order as a breach of courtroom protocol and an affront to the independence of the judiciary.
Kiner’s response, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, argues that Fraizer’s presumptive proposed order is more than a procedural misstep; he contends it is an overreach that signals a lack of respect for the court’s authority. Citing the landmark Supreme Court case Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., which affirms federal courts’ authority to sanction conduct that undermines judicial integrity, Kiner is calling on the court to impose formal sanctions on Fraizer, including a letter of reprimand and mandatory ethics training.
“Attorney Fraizer’s unsolicited submission of a presumptive proposed order, without any directive or request from this Honorable Court, represents a severe transgression that fundamentally undermines the decorum, independence, and authority of the judiciary,” Kiner’s motion reads. “Such conduct disregards the foundational tenet of judicial independence, which commands respect for the Court’s exclusive authority to render impartial decisions.”
The submission of a proposed order without the court’s request is widely considered unconventional in legal practice. The typical procedure, shaped by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires both parties to follow a structured filing and response system that respects the court’s timeline and discretion. Legal experts suggest that Fraizer’s submission assumes an outcome that only the judge is authorized to decide—a move some believe risks prejudicing the court’s view of the case by projecting a one-sided interpretation.
Beyond the issue of the unsolicited order, Kiner’s filing raises broader concerns about Fraizer’s conduct in the courtroom. Exhibits attached to the motion include sworn affidavits from two witnesses who describe Fraizer’s behavior toward Kiner Chancery Court as “hostile,” even alleging that she made aggressive gestures that made them fear for his safety. Additionally, an article from The Shelby County Observer included in the filing discusses Fraizer’s courtroom demeanor, suggesting she might benefit from mental health counseling to address her conduct toward Kiner, a respected local pastor.
Legal analysts have weighed in on the ethical implications of Fraizer’s behavior, noting that the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 4.4(a) prohibits attorneys from actions meant to harass or harm others. “Submitting an unsolicited order is not just unorthodox—it’s presumptuous,” remarked one legal observer. “It suggests a kind of entitlement to the court’s decision-making process that undermines judicial impartiality.”
Kiner’s request for sanctions is underscored by his reliance on Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., a ruling that grants courts the power to impose sanctions on attorneys who abuse the judicial process. “By presenting a proposed order without invitation,” Kiner’s motion reads, “Fraizer oversteps her role as counsel and encroaches upon the impartial function of this Court, rendering her conduct not only inappropriate but also a potential affront to the Court’s dignity.”
Kiner’s legal arguments emphasize the significance of protecting the judiciary from influence and maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality. His motion contends that Fraizer’s proposed order disrupts the traditional adversarial balance of the courtroom, subtly attempting to guide the court’s deliberation in favor of her client. Such moves, Kiner argues, are emblematic of an approach that risks reducing the judicial process to a mere formality rather than the thorough examination of facts and arguments it is intended to be.
Fraizer’s actions have ignited questions around the ethics of courtroom conduct, the limits of legal advocacy, and the standards expected of attorneys in representing their clients. By seeking sanctions, Kiner is asking the court not only to address Fraizer’s conduct in this case but also to affirm its commitment to maintaining the independence and dignity of the judiciary. If the court imposes sanctions, it could set a precedent reinforcing the principle that attorneys must act within established ethical boundaries and respect the court’s authority above all else.
As this legal battle unfolds, Fraizer’s unsolicited order is emerging as a stark reminder of the fine line between zealous advocacy and courtroom overreach—one that could impact how courts navigate attorney conduct in future cases. For now, all eyes are on the U.S. District Court as it considers Kiner’s motion, with legal professionals awaiting a ruling that could send a message about the gravity of preserving judicial independence in an era where its foundations are increasingly scrutinized.
About Post Author
