The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in affirming sanctions against a law firm under 28 U.S.C.? 1927. In Enmon v. Prospect Capital Corporation, 675 F.3d. 138 (2d Cir. 2012) the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York imposed sanctions on a law firm and its attorneys for filing a frivolous appeal and other misrepresentations made during the course of the litigation.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the law firm’s assertion that the district court is without authority under 28 U.S.C. ? 1927 to award sanctions against the firm as a whole for the actions of various lawyers. The Appeals Court pointed out that the district court imposed sanctions pursuant to both it’s inherit powers and ? 1927 and said “There is no serious dispute that a court may sanction a law firm pursuant to its inherent power. We see no reason that a different rule should apply to ? 1927 sanctions.” (p. 147)
In other words, the court held that sanctions may be imposed against the law firm under ? 1927 although the statute applies by its terms to an “attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases.”