§ 10.004.Violation; Sanction

The sanctions section, and its governing principle is stated before its list.

The sanction must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.

That is deterrence, not compensation, and the difference is practical. A sanction is measured by what will stop the conduct recurring rather than by what the other side spent — so a large fee bill does not entitle a party to a large award.

"Or comparable conduct by others similarly situated" adds a general deterrent dimension, which is how a modest sanction against a well-resourced firm can still be justified.

A court may sanction the person who signed, the party represented by that person, or both.

Three forms are available: a directive to perform or refrain from performing an act; an order to pay a penalty into court; and an order to pay the other party’s reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred because of the filing.

The penalty into court is the distinctive one. It goes to the court rather than the opponent, which suits a violation that deserves a response but caused the other side little expense.

Subsection (d) is the protection every represented party should know about: the court may not award monetary sanctions against a represented party for a violation of Section 10.001(2) — the certification about legal contentions.

The reasoning is that legal theories are the lawyer’s responsibility. A client cannot judge whether an argument is warranted by existing law, and should not pay for the lawyer’s misjudgement of it. Factual contentions, which the client does know about, remain within reach.

Two further limits close the section. Monetary sanctions may not be imposed on the court’s own initiative unless the show cause order issued before a voluntary dismissal or settlement. And a general denial under Rule 92 is not a violation of the chapter.