Court inherent power
The Civil Rules grant judges specific powers to sanction attorneys for misconduct for (1) making a filing that is not well grounded in fact, not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for a change in the law, or interposed for an improper purpose (CR 11), or (2) failing to properly respond to discovery (CR 37). The sanctioned attorney is typically required to pay the litigation expenses, including attorney fees, the other side incurred as a result of the misconduct, including the cost of bringing the motion for sanctions.
However, Courts also have inherent power to sanction attorneys for bad faith conduct even if a specific rule does not provide for it. Washington courts have inherent power to assess litigation expenses, including attorney fees, against an attorney for bad faith litigation conduct. This inherent power is codified by statute. “When jurisdiction is . . . conferred on a court or judicial officer all the means to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of the jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding is not specifically pointed out by statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of the laws.” RCW 2.28.150.
Among other things, “Every court of justice has power—(1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. (2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it . . . . (3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it or its officers. (4) To compel obedience to its judgments, decrees, orders and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein.” RCW 2.28.010.
A trial court’s inherent authority to sanction litigation conduct is properly invoked upon a finding of bad faith. A party may demonstrate bad faith by delaying or disrupting litigation. A finding of “inappropriate and improper” is tantamount to a finding of bad faith. The court’s inherent power to sanction is governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Sanctions may be appropriate if an act affects the integrity of the court and, if left unchecked, would encourage future abuses.