Sanctions – Court vacates order suspending attorney’s admission to bar

Where the district court sanctioned an attorney for allegedly making misstatements to another court about this case, and then reaffirming the allegedly false misstatements to that court, but the evidence did not show the attorney’s alleged noncompliance caused harm, and the sanction was punitive, it was vacated.

Background

The district court sanctioned Pressly Millen, an attorney for DMARC Advisor BV, for allegedly making misstatements in an affidavit submitted to a Dutch court regarding a pending suit in North Carolina, and the reaffirming the allegedly false misstatements to that court. It temporarily suspended his admission to the Bar of the Western District of North Carolina.

Jurisdiction

dInc argues that the contempt order is interlocutory, and that Millen is required to wait until the district court enters a final judgment in the North Carolina case before appealing the contempt order entered against him. This court disagrees.

Nonparties held in civil contempt need not await a final judgment in an underlying case to appeal their contempt adjudication. Because a civil contempt order typically constitutes a final adjudication of the nonparty’s rights, such an order entered against a nonparty is treated as a final, appealable decision. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over Millen’s immediate appeal of the contempt order because Millen is not a party to the North Carolina case.

Analysis

Millen asserts that the district court abused its discretion in holding him in civil contempt because the evidence did not show that his alleged noncompliance with the correction order caused harm to dInc. The court agrees.

Initially, this court observes that although the Dutch court originally denied dInc’s request for a stay based in part on Millen’s and Meijboom’s purported misrepresentations, that conduct preceded the correction order and thus is not relevant to this court’s inquiry of alleged harm resulting from Millen’s failure to submit the separate statement. Instead, dInc was required to show that it suffered harm after the date of the correction order of June 27, 2023, by Millen’s failure to file the separate statement.

Here, the sanction imposed on Millen did not promote compliance with a court order or ensure that dInc be compensated for any harm it sustained as a result of Millen’s failure to comply with the correction order. Instead, the extreme sanction imposed by the district court, barring Millen from practicing law in federal courts in the Western District of North Carolina while the case remained pending, was overtly punitive and was not remedial in any respect.

Before exercising its discretion to impose civil contempt sanctions, a court must consider the potential harm from continued noncompliance, the efficacy of the sanction and the burden on the contemnor. Here, the district court did not conduct such an analysis or require supporting evidence but summarily concluded that Millen’s failure to file the separate statement caused dInc to incur expense related to delays in both the North Carolina case and the Dutch case. Although the court found that Meijboom’s contradictory arguments in the Dutch court made it “crucial” that Millen file the separate statement, this finding did not demonstrate a particular loss to dInc arising from Millen’s failure to do so.

Moreover, the correction order filed with the Dutch court itself contained (1) the district court’s view of the timing and the nature of the cases and (2) the particular information that the court asked dBV’s counsel to submit in the separate statement. After reviewing the correction order, the Dutch court ultimately agreed with the North Carolina court’s view that the North Carolina case began before the Dutch case and that the two cases had overlapping issues. Notably, dInc did not present any evidence, nor did the district court find, that Millen’s submission of the separate statement would have resulted in a more favorable or timelier outcome in the Dutch court.

Finally, the sanction imposed on Millen was severe in its potential economic and reputational costs, particularly given the district court’s characterization of Millen’s “improper actions” as being “one small slice” of dBV’s contemptuous conduct. Thus, despite the district court’s statement that the sanction was not punitive, the sanction effectively penalized Millen’s past conduct rather than addressed future compliance with the correction order.

Vacated, as to Millen.

dmarcian, Inc. v. Millen, Case No. 25-1085, July 10, 2026. 4th Cir. (Keenan), from WDNC at Asheville (Reidinger). Samuel B. Hartzell for Appellant. David Anthony Dorey for Appellee. VLW 026-2-257. 16 pp.

Full-Text Opinion