Full opinion text
OPINION CHIN, District Judge. This case presents the question of when a lawyer crosses the line from zealously representing a client to abusing the legal process. The Second Circuit recently observed that “determining whether a case or conduct falls beyond the pale is perhaps one of the most difficult and unenviable tasks for a court.” Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323, 340 (2d Cir.1999). Here, the conduct of Judd Bur-stein, Esq., counsel for plaintiff Rommy Revson, was clearly and unmistakably “beyond the pale.” Burstein engaged in a pattern of offensive and overly aggressive conduct that multiplied these proceedings and caused significant harm to Robert W. Cinque, Esq., and his law firm, defendant Cinque & Cinque, P.C. (the “Firm”). Those tactics included the following: • writing a letter to Cinque threatening to “tarnish” his reputation and subject him to the “legal equivalent of a proc-tology exam”; • making a sham offer to settle by setting an unreasonable deadline for Cin-que to respond and then immediately filing suit even though Cinque met that deadline by indicating a desire to discuss settlement; • publicly accusing Cinque of fraud without any concrete evidence to support the claim; • threatening to interfere with the Firm’s other clients, including (i) conducting an investigation to identify those clients, (ii) contacting one or more of the Firm’s former clients, and (iii) seeking permission to send a letter to all the Firm’s clients to inquire as to “experiences, good or bad,” with the Firm’s billing practices; • serving overly broad subpoenas, including a subpoena for all the Firm’s banking records and even a subpoena seeking records from the golf course where Cinque played golf; • threatening to add a RICO claim; • threatening to sue Cinque individually and to seek discovery of Cinque’s personal finances; • threatening to send a letter to the Court accusing Cinque of criminal conduct if he did not capitulate to Rev-son’s demands; • making good on his threat to “tarnish” Cinque’s reputation by contacting a reporter some weeks before trial, explaining that Revson had sued Cinque for fraudulent billing, and giving the reporter documents as well as names of former clients; • engaging in unfair tactics at trial, including cross-examining Cinque in an unfair manner; and • repeatedly attacking Cinque in an offensive and demeaning fashion, including calling Cinque “a lawyer who ... has acted in a manner that shames all of us in the profession,” “a disgrace to the legal profession,” and an example of “why lawyers are sometimes referred to as snakes,” and accusing Cin-que of “engagfing] in the type of mail fraud that has led to the criminal conviction of other attorneys,” being so “desperate for money he resorted to ... extortion,” and being “slimy.” Burstein’s tactics turned what should have been a simple dispute between a client and her attorney over the amount of a fee into a difficult, unseemly litigation that was intended from the outset to damage Cin-que’s reputation. Burstein defends his actions by arguing that he was only doing his duty, that he was only doing his best to represent Rev-son zealously and aggressively, and that he always acted in good faith and in an objectively reasonable manner. I am not persuaded.' A lawyer’s duty to represent his client zealously does not permit him to treat his adversary or parties in an offensive and demeaning manner or to engage in a course of conduct intended to coerce a settlement through improper threats and harassment. Although a lawyer must represent his client zealously, he must do so within the bounds of the law. An attorney is a professional and an officer of the court, not a hired gun or mercenary whose sole motivation is to win or an attack dog whose sole purpose is to destroy. Burstein did not act within the bounds of the law here. Rather, he acted in bad faith and with reckless and utter disregard for the harm that Cinque and the Firm would suffer as a result of his “Rambo” tactics. Consequently, sanctions will be imposed against him. For the reasons set forth below, sanctions will not be imposed against Revson, although she will be assessed costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The following constitute my findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Revson’s Relationship with the Firm Revson is the inventor of the “scunei,” sometimes referred to as a “scrunchy,” a cloth-covered, elasticized hairband that women typically wear around ponytails. Millions of dollars worth of scuncis are sold every year, and as the patent holder, Revson is often in litigation to enforce patent and licensing rights. In February or March of 1993, Revson was involved in an arbitration in Philadelphia with L & N Sales & Marketing, Inc. (“L & N”). She was unhappy with her then-attorneys, and replaced them with Cinque and the Firm. By retainer agreement dated March 24, 1993 and executed by her on March 25, 1993, Revson retained the Firm to represent her as “litigation counsel” in connection with a dispute with L & N and “generally” in connection with her activities as “creative artist, inventor and patent holder.” (PX l). The agreement, which was signed by Cinque, advised Revson that Cinque’s “customary” hourly billing rate was $325 and that his brother, James Cin-que, billed at the rate of $300 per hour. The agreement further provided: While we keep daily records of the time we spent [sic], in fairness to you in this matter involving the many issues which arise from the current dispute with L & N our billing will take into account not only the amount of time spent, but also the result achieved. Of necessity, a fair amount of duplication of attorney effort and time must take place, and I do not believe it appropriate to charge you the full rate for this. At the same time, if we are able to achieve an outstanding result or substantial benefit for you, then our billing would be adjusted accordingly following consultation with you. (PX l). For almost five years, Revson and Cin-que enjoyed an excellent relationship. The Firm represented Revson on a number of patent and licensing matters. Rev-son became perhaps the Firm’s most important client and over the course of nearly five years she paid the Firm almost $400,000 in fees. The Firm never raised its hourly rates and often charged Revson less than the amount of the time calculated at the usual rates; the Firm reduced its bills by some $50,000 over the course of 1996 and 1997. (Trial Tr. at 467-68, 667 (Cinque testifying that he told Revson about reductions), 693-700; see, e.g., DX D, PP; but see Trial Tr. at 246-47). On at least one occasion, after Cin-que negotiated a $300,000 licensing fee for Revson, he billed her on a percentage basis — -five percent of the $300,000 fee. (DX C & Trial Tr. at 463-65). Throughout the representation, the Firm provided bills and other billing information to Revson. Many if not all of these bills were also sent to Revson’s accountants for their review. (See, e.g., PX 2-4, 9-10, 13, 16, 18-19, 21-24; DX I, J; see also Trial Tr. at 516-17, 690). At times, the Firm provided Revson with detailed narrative descriptions and at times it sent her the actual time sheets. (See, e.g., DX F, G, I; PX 2-11,13, 14, 15, 16-24). In or about May 1997, Revson informed Cinque that it was “not necessary” to send the time sheets; Cinque confirmed this in a letter dated May 8, 1997, and advised Rev-son that the time sheets would be available for her to review at any time at her request. (DX EE). The relationship between Revson and Cinque became more than just a business relationship. As Revson described it: He [Cinque] was like a brother that I didn’t really have. He was a friend. He and Jane [referring to Jane Klein, Cinque’s companion] were both friends. We had a lot of fun times together. (Trial Tr. at 62-63). At one point, Cinque and Klein visited with Revson and her son and his girlfriend for ten days at a house Revson had rented in Sun Valley. (Id. at 184, 465). In or about February 1997, Cinque and Klein visited Revson at her home in Florida for a working vacation. They were there for several days and Cinque spent some portion of the time working with Revson to prepare for the L & N arbitration. (Id. at 65-66, 516, 518-19). After Cinque and Klein left, Revson wrote Cin-que a note, which read as follows: Dear Bob & Jane, Sadness, tears, love, emptiness, and yet, happiness, belonging and a strong sense of friendship and family fill my heart as your little white car is pulling away from my happy little orange cottage (that you got me from Riviera). Time flies when we are together. My happiest moments are probably dinner, cocktails, and morning greetings when you both are near.... In my life, very few people have believed in me and supported me and took the time out to understand me, Both of you did! For this, I love ■ both of you.... One night at dinner, I had mentioned that I would give you 10% (ten percent) of whatever you recover for me from L & N. I want to unequivocally state that is exactly what “the deal” is. You stood by me and deserve it! (DX E) (emphasis in original). Revson was so pleased with the Firm’s services that, in early October 1997, she presented Cinque with a Mercedes-Benz, adorned with a red ribbon, as a gift. She did this in recognition of his efforts in representing her, particularly with respect to the licensing matter referred to in Rev-son’s note as “Riviera.” After considering the propriety of accepting the car, Cinque decided he had to decline it and he did so. (Trial Tr. at 526-29). B. The Relationship Ends In the fall of 1997, Cinque negotiated, on behalf of Revson, what the parties have referred to as the second Riviera agreement. On December 4, 1997, the deal closed and the agreement was executed at the Carlyle Hotel. The agreement provided for Riviera to pay $2.4 million to Rev-son — $1.5 million was paid to her at the closing and remaining $900,000 was to be paid over three years. At the closing, Revson gave gifts to Cinque and Riviera’s attorney, Michael Weiss. (Trial Tr. at 502-03; see also id. at 90-93). The next morning, Cinque telephoned Revson, in part to discuss whether she would be attending the deposition of a witness for a pending matter involving L & N. During the conversation, he raised the subject of the Firm’s fee for its work with respect to the second Riviera agreement. He referred to the ten percent “deal” that Revson had agreed to with respect to L & N and suggested that the Firm deserved a fee of a “little more” than ten percent of the amounts to be paid under the second Riviera agreement. Revson became upset and said she wanted to think about it. (Trial Tr. at 505-07; see also id. at 93-96). Cinque took the deposition in the L & N matter that day and Revson attended. Cinque did not hear from Revson again until December 10, 1997, when Revson called him together with Chuck Woolston, her accountant. They discussed matters relating to Riviera, but did not discuss the fee issue. (Trial Tr. at 507-08). The next morning, Cinque saw a fax from Riviera’s attorney, Michael Weiss, together with a copy of a modification agreement. The fax was a letter from Weiss to Ronald Witkowski, a different attorney whom Revson apparently consulted about the second Riviera agreement, unbeknownst to Cinque. The fax noted that it and the modification agreement were being sent to Witkowski for his review at Revson’s direction; no indication was given that a copy was being sent to Cinque. (DX L). Although Cinque had negotiated the second Riviera agreement, he was unaware of the proposed modification agreement, and Revson and Woolston had not mentioned it in the telephone conversation the evening before. (Trial Tr. at 508). Cinque was upset by this turn of events, both because he felt the proposed modifications were unfavorable to Revson and because he believed Revson had gone behind his back. (Trial Tr. at 509-10). Cinque and Revson spoke at approximately 5:45 p.m. on December 11th. Cin-que told Revson he believed she was giving away the rights to Canada for “nothing.” They also discussed the issue of the Firm’s fees for the second Riviera agreement, and the conversation became heated. Revson finally said to Cinque, “that’s it, you are fired,” and hung up the telephone. (Trial Tr. at 509-10). Within a minute, a fax arrived at Cinque’s office; it was a letter from Revson terminating the relationship. The letter stated in part as follows: I write to inform you that I have decided to discharge you and your firm as my counsel for all purposes (including the L & N arbitration), and replace you with Judd Burstein and the firm of Bur-stein & Fass LLP.... Upon presentation of the detailed billing statement that I have been requesting for months, I will of course promptly pay all time charges and disbursements due and owing to your firm. (DX M) (emphasis added). C. The Filing of this Action The termination letter wa,s drafted by Burstein, who had been consulted by Rev-son a few days earlier. Burstein was on trial at the time in St. Louis, but spoke to Revson by telephone several times. On Friday, December 12, 1997, Cinque spoke briefly with Burstein’s colleague, Laurie McPherson. Cinque concluded that he would have to speak with Burstein himself, and McPherson told him that Burstein would communicate with Cinque at his earliest convenience. (Cinque Decl. ¶ 3). On Monday morning, December 15, 1997, Cinque arrived at his office and was greeted by a letter from Burstein dated December 14, 1997. {Id. ¶ 4). In the letter, Burstein threatened to “tarnish” Cin-que’s reputation and to subject him to the “legal equivalent of a proctology exam”: I am writing to you in one last effort to avoid litigation that will inevitably tarnish your reputation and, perhaps, reduce the size of your wallet. I am therefore enclosing a copy of a complaint, still being proofread and finalized, that will be filed at Noon on December 15, 1997 unless we can reach an agreement with respect to the release of Ms. Revson’s files and your claims for fees.... I apologize in advance for the harshness of this letter. I have no desire to fan the flames of an emotional dispute. Nor do I have the desire to conduct the legal equivalent of a proctology exam on your finances and billing practices. Yet, I will not hesitate to do so unless you begin to act in a responsible manner. (Burstein 7/15/99 Decl., Ex. U). Burstein wrote this letter without ever having spoken to Cinque. Within hours, Cinque responded, faxing a detailed, four-page letter to Burstein at noon on December 15th, the deadline set by Burstein. (Cinque Decl. ¶ 7). Cinque’s letter sought to accomplish several goals. First, it sought to admonish Burstein for the “inflammatory remarks” and “reckless”language he used in his December 14th letter. Second, it sought to persuade Burstein that the proposed complaint contained material misstatements and omissions, in violation of Rule 11, and allegations that lacked merit. Third, the letter sought to convey the message that Cinque still eared for Revson and that he wanted to resolve the dispute without litigation. The letter provided: As I told Ms. McPherson when we spoke Friday morning ... I had a completely open mind as to how best to resolve this disagreement while at the same time avoiding unnecessary burdens and unpleasantness for Ms. Revson. It is a big mistake for Rommy through you to inflame this already sensitive situation especially where, as here, you recklessly make misstatements of fact which cry out for a public response from me in order to preserve my reputation which you threaten to tarnish. While Rommy might find this difficult to believe at this moment, I am still one of her strongest supporters and I truly regret that we had this breakdown in communication at what should have been one of the happiest times of our professional relationship.... In closing, let me say that while I find the tactics in which you have engaged as offensive as they are precipitous, and while I am prepared to litigate these horrendous accusations vigorously, I still have enough feeling for Rommy that under appropriate circumstances I would be prepared to talk with her to try and resolve a disagreement which should never have escalated to this point.... If Rommy wants to put all of this behind her quickly and as painlessly as possible, I am prepared to work with her so that we can do it. All she has to do is call me. On the other hand if she and you opt for litigation calculated to tarnish my reputation, then you and she should carefully consider the nature, basis and accuracy of each of the accusations you make against me — something that neither of you has done thus far as I assure you I shall vigorously defend myself against this outrageous conduct. (Burstein 7/15/99 Decl., Ex. V). Despite Cinque’s expression of a willingness and desire to discuss resolving the dispute with Revson, neither Burstein nor Revson called him. (Cinque Decl. ¶ 9). Instead, the very next day, this action was filed. D. The Allegations Against Cinque Revson’s original complaint in this action, filed on December 16,1997, contained two claims for relief. The first sought a declaratory judgment that: (i) Revson was not obligated to pay the Firm any additional fees because the Firm had been discharged “for cause,” (ii) the Firm was not entitled to a “bonus,” and (iii) the Firm was not entitled to a retaining lien on Revson’s files. The second sought an injunction requiring the Firm to turn over Revson’s files. The complaint alleged that Cinque had “failed and refused” to produce contemporaneous time records to Revson and that Cinque had made “professionally irresponsible threats” to Revson, including threatening to withdraw as her attorney unless she paid him a bonus. The complaint further contended that Cin-que had disobeyed her instructions, that he had accused her of “being greedy,” and that he had made false statements to her. (Burstein 7/15/99 Decl., Ex. II). The complaint did not accuse the Firm of fraudulent overbilling. On December 19, 1997, Revson submitted an affidavit in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the Firm to turn over her files. (Cinque Decl., Ex. C). The affidavit contained numerous inaccuracies. For example, the affidavit incorrectly alleged that the Firm had refused, despite Revson’s requests, to provide time records or an “intelligible breakdown” of bills. (Id., Ex. C, ¶¶ 1, 5), In fact, as the correspondence shows, the Firm had provided Revson with contemporaneous time sheets as well as detailed bills over the years. (See, e.g., DX C, F, G, I; PX 2-11, 13, 14, 16-24). The affidavit incorrectly alleged that the Firm had started representing her in 1994 and that she had “no written retainer agreement,” when in fact the Firm had started representing her in February or March of 1993 and she had signed a retainer agreement on March 25, 1993. (Cinque Decl., Ex. C, ¶ 2 & PX 1). The affidavit also suggested that the Firm overbilled her because, as “a two lawyer firm,” it could not have billed “almost $400,000 in legal fees” over the prior “three years” or “more than $150,000 in legal fees” over the prior eight months. (Cinque Decl., Ex. C, ¶ 3). Burstein did not know that Revson’s statements were false when they were submitted to the Court and he was entitled to rely on Revson’s statements to him. On December 22, 1997, the parties appeared before Judge Rakoff by order to show cause. The dispute over the release of the files was resolved; Revson agreed to deposit certain funds in escrow, and the Firm agreed to release the files to her new attorneys. (Trial Tr. at 512-13). On January 5, 1998, Revson filed an amended complaint. (DX U). The amended complaint dropped the false allegations that the Firm had refused to provide Revson with time records, but significantly it added a claim of fraud, alleging, “on information and belief,” that the Firm’s bills were “based upon fraudulently over-inflated time charges.” (Id. ¶ 1; see Cinque Decl., Ex. D). The amended complaint also alleged “on information and belief that [the Firm] has been sending, and [Revson] has been paying, fraudulent time charge bills since sometime in 1994.” (Cinque Decl., Ex. D, ¶ 19). Finally, the amended complaint also alleged that the Firm breached its fiduciary duties to Rev-son by “submitting fraudulent bills” to her. (Id. ¶ 28). On January 9, 1998, unaware that Rev-son had filed an amended complaint, the Firm filed an “Answer, Counterclaim and Supplemental Notice of FRCP 11 Violations” in response to the original complaint. (Cinque Decl., Ex. B). The answer set forth in detail Cinque’s version of the events in question. The Firm counterclaimed for the fair and reasonable value of its services and also sought sanctions against Revson and her counsel. The Firm later filed an answer to the amended complaint, with a counterclaim and notice of Rule 11 violations. (DX V). E. The Conduct of the Litigation I conferenced the case on January 9, 1998. Cinque brought the “proctology” letter to my attention. Burstein was not present, but I expressed to his partner Robert Fass my unhappiness with the letter. I did not impose any sanctions; I merely conveyed my view that the language of the letter was inappropriate. Burstein responded with a letter to the Court that read in part as follows: Mr. Fass alerted me to Your Honor’s concerns about my letter to Mr. Cinque, dated December 14, 1997. I want to assure Your Honor that I understand and respect your views concerning the manner in which counsel should communicate with opposing counsel and Your Honor’s views about aggressive hyperbole. While I respectfully disagree with Your Honor on the issue of attorney conduct, I ■ nonetheless recognize Your Honor’s right to insist upon lawyers acting in accordance with the Court’s views on the issue. My letter to Mr. Cinque, which I respectfully believe was proper, was written before Your Honor was assigned to the case. Had I known that Your Honor would be the Judge in this ease, I surely would have toned down the language of my letter, as I would never intentionally act in a manner contrary to the Court’s views on attorney conduct. The fact that I respectfully disagree with Your Honor is irrelevant. (Cinque Decl., Ex. F) (emphasis added). Burstein enclosed a copy of a letter of apology that he had sent to Cinque and concluded his letter to the Court as follows: Again, I want to make clear that I in no way meant any disrespect to the Court. Nor did I believe that my letter would cause Mr. Cinque any real distress. However, as expressed in my letter to Mr. Cinque, I do apologize for any pain that I may have caused. (Id.). Burstein’s letter of apology to Cinque read as follows: Recognizing and respecting Judge Chin’s views as to how counsel should interact with each other, I write to apologize for any pain or upset I may have caused by some of the harsher provisions of my letter to you dated December 14, 1998. Although we may have great differences, it is my hope that we can move past what some may consider overly aggressive behavior on my part, and conduct this case in the manner desired by Judge Chin. I, therefore, want you to know that I see no reason why we cannot deal civilly with each other, and invite communication from you on the issue of settlement. (Cinque Decl., Ex. G). Within a few days, Burstein made clear his intent to probe Revson’s allegation of fraudulent billing. On January 12, 1998, he wrote to Cinque: We will be serving our first demand for the production of documents upon you tomorrow. Of particular note is our request for your diaries and your billing records for other clients. Such records are necessary for the purpose of proving our claim that your firm did not spend the time working on Ms. Revson’s matters that you claimed to have spent. (Cinque Decl., Ex. H) (emphasis added, footnote omitted). An exchange of letters followed, but the parties were unable to work out their disagreements. In one of those letters, Burstein informed Cinque that Revson had been conducting an “independent investigation” into the identity of Cinque’s clients. (Cinque Decl., Ex. J). On January 26, 1998, Burstein wrote a letter to the Court, which discussed, among other things, the issue of contacting Cinque’s clients: [Bjefore taking action, I ask for the Court’s guidance on the issue of how we may communicate with [the Firm]’s clients. It is my belief that this case may well come down to a dispute over intent, with [the Firm] arguing that its erroneous bills are the product of innocent mistake as opposed to fraud. Accordingly, evidence admissible pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) may play a crucial role at trial. Toward this end, we have conducted an independent investigation to ascertain the identity of [the Firmj’s clients, and propose to send the following letter to them: We are the attorneys for Rommy Revson, who is involved in a fee dispute litigation with Cinque & Cinque, P.C. In connection with that litigation, we write to inquire whether you would be willing to discuss with us your experiences, good or bad, with Cinque & Cinque’s billing practices. This request is for your voluntary cooperation, and you are under no obligation even to respond to this letter. Although we do not believe that a request for information about Cinque & Cinque’s billing practices would involve the disclosure of privileged information, you may want to discuss this matter with an attorney.... (Cinque Deck, Ex. K). I did not have to rule on the issue. At a conference on February 17, 1998, the Firm advised that it was not going to rely on an “innocent overbilling argument” and Bur-stein indicated that consequently Revson would withdraw her request for Rule 404(b) evidence. This tentative agreement was to be memorialized in a stipulation, but no such stipulation was ever executed. (See Burstein 7/15/99 Decl., Exs. PP, QQ). On or about February 18,1998, Burstein & Fass issued a subpoena to the Republic National Bank requesting the production of “[a]ll banking records in the name of Cinque & Cinque, P.C .... from January 1994 to present.” (Cinque Decl., Ex. L). The subpoena in essence told Republic National Bank, with which Cinque had had a banking relationship for twenty years, that the Firm had been sued in federal court. (Cinque Decl. ¶¶ 28, 25). By order dated March 10, 1998, I quashed the subpoena, but denied the Firm’s request for sanctions. (Cinque Decl., Ex. M). In a letter to the Court dated March 11, 1998, Burstein requested a conference to discuss certain discovery issues. He proposed issuing a new, but more limited, subpoena to Republic National Bank for the Firm’s banking records and he again expressed a desire to contact “past and present clients” of the Firm (via a letter similar to the one he had suggested before) to develop Rule 404(b) evidence. Burstein concluded his letter by stating, in essence, that if a conference were not convened he would assume that he was “authorize[d] ... to take these steps without the fear of sanctions.” (Cinque Decl., Ex. N). I did not schedule a conference. Bur-stein issued a second subpoena on Republic National Bank on March 26, 1998 seeking all “account statements” for the Firm for 1996 and 1997. (Cinque Decl., Ex. O). On June 9, 1998, I issued an order quashing this second subpoena and again denying the Firm’s request for sanctions. (Cinque Decl., Ex. P). Burstein and Revson never contacted any then-current clients of the Firm. During discovery, Burstein (or his firm) did contact a lawyer for a former client of the Firm, but no discussions were had with the client himself. During trial, Burstein (or his firm) also spoke to Michael Stout, Esq., the executor of the Estate of Robert Mapplethorpe. Cinque had previously represented the Mapplethorpe estate on certain matters. During trial, Burstein (or his firm) also contacted another attorney, who was co-counsel for one of the Firm’s “very significant client[s].” (8/25/99 Tr. at 49-52; see Burstein 7/15/99 Decl. ¶¶ 84-87). In his search for evidence of fraud, Bur-stein went so far as to subpoena records from the golf course where Cinque played golf, presumably trying to show that Cin-que was playing golf when he supposedly was working. (8/25/99 Tr. at 56). On June 22, 1998, Burstein sent Cinque two letters. The first was a letter addressed to Cinque; the second was a letter addressed to the Court, which Burstein suggested to Cinque that he would be submitting to the Court. The first letter read as follows: I am sending you a copy of a letter that is presently being proofread in my office. Unless I hear from you by 2:00 p.m. today that you are willing to settle ... for (a) relinquishment of all claims against Ms. Revson, including your claim for a “bonus,” (b) release of all monies presently held in escrow, and (c) the return of monies (amount, payment schedule, and security to be negotiated) to Ms. Revson, we will move forward with our efforts to amend the complaint and to secure additional discovery. Six months ago, I wrote you a letter which, upon reflection, was discourteous. I again apologize for the tone of that letter. But to the extent that I was merely stating that litigating this case could ultimately prove devastating for you, I was correct. Because you are a lawyer who, in my view, has acted in a manner that shames all of us in the profession, I am sorely tempted to just move forward and let you face a jury made up of a public generally unsympathetic to lawyers. However, I have concluded that if I do so, I would only be punishing you for your decision not to retain independent counsel to represent you. For if you had such counsel, he or she would surely advise you not to risk your career and your assets given what might be very charitably characterized as the inadequacies of your time records. The ball is in your court. (Cinque Decl., Ex. Q) (emphasis added). Hence, at the same time that Burstein purported to apologize again for the “proc-tology” letter, he called Cinque “a lawyer who ... has acted in a manner that shames all of us in the profession.” (Id.). The draft letter that Burstein threatened to send to the Court stated as follows: Having finally been afforded the opportunity to review Cinque & Cinque’s time sheets on plaintiffs matters, which reveal stunning evidence of an ongoing fraud on the part of Robert Cin-que, I write to request a pre-motion conference so that we may be granted permission to seek the following relief. ... (Cinque Decl., Ex. Q) (boldface in original, footnote omitted). It goes on to describe the requested relief, which included leave to amend the complaint to assert claims, including a RICO claim, against Cinque individually. The proposed letter also sought additional discovery, including discovery as to Cinque’s personal finances. It also stated: I recognize that Your Honor believes that this ease is out-of-hand. But the fact is that, as we demonstrate below, Mr. Cinque’s own time records, written in his own hand, reveal that he has engaged in the type of mail fraud that has led to the criminal conviction of other attorneys. See, e.g., United States v. Elliott, 89 F.3d 1360, 1362-63 (8th Cir.1996). Both as a matter of vindicating my client’s rights and as a matter of public policy, attorneys must not be permitted to escape the consequences of such disturbing conduct. (Id.) (emphasis added). The proposed letter contained a chart that purported to show that sixteen of eighteen bills for the period between February 1, 1996 and November 1997 were inflated, by an average of approximately 18%. Although Burstein did not provide a copy of the proposed amended pleading, his letter did note that the proposed amended complaint would allege “that Cinque & Cinque’s other clients have been similarly defrauded.” (Id.). James Cinque responded on behalf of the Firm. He noted that he had discussed the Firm’s time-keeping records with Bur-stein’s partner, Robert Fass, at the outset of the litigation, and that he had explained to Fass that the Firm recorded time in increments of one-quarter of an hour. Moreover, James Cinque pointed out that this had been the Firm’s billing practice during the five years it represented Rev-son, and that this procedure had been explained to Revson and her accountants. (Cinque Decl., Ex. R). On March 15, 1999, Revson moved (1) for partial summary judgment dismissing the Firm’s counterclaim to the extent it sought, on a contractual basis, a percentage upward adjustment in legal fees and (2) in limine for certain evidentiary rulings. On April 19, 1999, about a month before the scheduled start of trial, an article appeared in the New York Observer about this case. See Matt Fleischer, Lawyer, Scunci Queen Tangle Over Legal Fees, N.Y. Observer, Apr. 19, 1999, at 9. Revson is quoted at length, and the article provides extensive details about the dispute between Revson and the Firm. It reports that Revson had asked the Court “to declare the bulk of Mr. Cinque’s bills fraudulent or unjustified.” It also quotes two former clients of the Firm. The article noted that Cinque had been contacted but “declined to discuss details of the case,” although Cinque did provide some general comments. Cinque testified at trial that the reporter told him that Burstein had contacted the reporter about the case. Burstein gave the reporter a number of documents, some of which were quoted in the article. (Trial Tr. at 673-75). On May 3, 1999, I granted Revson’s motion in part and denied it in part. Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., No. 97 Civ. 9236(DC), 1999 WL 280419 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1999). I held that the Firm was not entitled to a percentage recovery as a contractual matter because contingency fee arrangements had to be in writing, and the only writing that arguably set forth a contingency fee agreement was Revson’s handwritten February 12, 1997 note. The note, however, only referenced L & N, and the Firm had been discharged before the L & N matter was concluded. I held that the Firm could seek an upward adjustment from its time charges on a quantum meruit basis and that it could rely on the note in arguing the reasonable value of its services. Id. at *1. Immediately upon receipt of my decision, Burstein wrote Cinque a letter, purportedly seeking to discuss settlement. In the letter, Burstein predicted not only that the Firm would not recover any additional fees but that the jury would award an “additional fee forfeiture.” In addition, Burstein wrote: [I]f this case is not settled, Ms. Revson intends to sue you for your malpractice (just discovered) in failing to take steps to clear title to her Florida home when she purchased it. That action will be brought against you in Florida. In sum, the time has come for you to act responsibly. Just as I told you (too forcefully, I apologetically concede) in December of 1997; you were wrong about your right to a bonus on Riviera. You will be proven wrong again if we go forward to trial on the issue of your right to any of the escrowed funds. Perhaps more importantly, I promise you that you will regret subjecting yourself to a public trial in which your conduct will be subject to scrutiny which I do not believe it can withstand. I strongly suggest that you cut your losses now. (Cinque Decl., Ex. T) (emphasis added). The case did not settle, and trial commenced on May 17,1999. F. The Trial 1. Burstein’s Tactics Burstein went on the attack right in his opening statement at trial, calling Cinque “a disgrace to the legal profession.” (Trial Tr. at 6). He contended that in December 1997 Cinque was so “desperate for money he resorted to ... extortion.” {Id. at 9). He went on to say that the proof was “going to show that there is a reason why lawyers are sometimes referred to as snakes. It is this kind of conduct that gives lawyers a bad name and it’s disgraceful.” {Id. at 17-18). Burstein concluded his opening statement with the following: There is an old joke about a little boy who’s walking by a cemetery, and he sees a gravestone and it says, Here lies a lawyer and an honest man and he turns to his mother and he says, Mommy, why did they put two people in that grave? What you’re going to find in this case is [that it is] because of conduct like Robert Cinque’s that we have jokes like that, that lawyers are held in such disrepute .... I’m going to ask you ... to make Robert Cinque pay a heavy penalty in the form of damages and fee forfeiture for his horrendous conduct, for his horrendous breach of professional ethics, horrendous breach of Rommy Revson’s trust. {Id. at 19). In summation, Burstein returned to the theme, contending that “the reason why lawyers are held in such low repute is [the] kind of conduct” purportedly engaged in by Cinque. Indeed, he called Cinque’s conduct “slimy.” (Trial Tr. at 776). Before the first witness was called, Bur-stein raised an issue as to whether Jane Klein, Cinque’s companion, should be excluded from the courtroom as a potential witness. I ruled that Klein was to be excluded if there was some reasonable possibility that she would be called as a witness by the Firm. Rather than have Klein excluded from the courtroom, Cinque agreed not to call her as a witness, so that she would be permitted to remain in the courtroom during the trial. (Trial Tr. at 34-35). In summation, Burstein sought to argue that the jury should draw a negative inference from the fact that Cinque “never called [her] to testify.” {Id. at 784). I stopped Burstein from making the argument, for it was his request to have Klein excluded from the courtroom that caused Cinque to agree not to call her as a witness. The trial transcript shows the following: MR. BURSTEIN [to the jury]: ... How come he never called Ms. Klein to testify? She was here the whole time. THE COURT: You know, that’s an inappropriate argument. MR. BURSTEIN: Twill move on. THE COURT: You know very well that Mr. Cinque said he was going to call Ms. Klein and you objected to having her sit in the courtroom. MR. BURSTEIN: That’s not what happened, Judge. THE COURT: That’s what happened, Mr. Burstein. It is an inappropriate argument. Move on. Move on. (Trial Tr. at 784). When Cinque testified, Burstein cross-examined him by, among other things, suggesting to the jury “that no less than three judges in this very courthouse [had] criticized [Cinque] for unprofessional conduct and actually sanctioned [him].” (Trial Tr. at 534). One of those purported incidents was a decision issued by Judge Lloyd F. MacMahon in 1969 criticizing the law firm with which Cinque was then associated for making a “frivolous” request for an adjournment of a trial. Although Cinque is listed as one of the two attorneys for the firm, he was a first-year associate at the time, and he obviously played no role in the decision to ask for an adjournment. Burstein’s cross-examination of Cinque on this basis was unfair. (Id. at 540-41, 607). During the trial, outside the presence of the jury, I questioned why the case was being tried to a jury, as I was of the view that issues relating to fee agreements and the interpretation thereof were more appropriately addressed to the Court. Bur-stein responded by criticizing Cinque, saying, “He blew it. I would have never done it on a jury trial.” (Trial Tr. at 595). In fact, however, Burstein had filed, on behalf of Revson, a written demand for a jury trial. (Cinque Decl., Ex. W). Before the start of trial on Monday, May 17, 1999, Burstein advised the Court that he had just served a subpoena on the Firm for certain L & N records, including, for example, deposition digests. He explained that he had faxed a copy of the subpoena to the Firm the day before, Sunday. Cin-que explained that the records were in his garage in his home in East Hampton. I said that I did not expect him to return to East Hampton to retrieve the records because he was trying the case and did not receive the subpoena until that morning. (5/17/99 11:00 a.m. Tr. at 9-11). Despite these circumstances, during the trial Bur-stein sought to cross-examine Cinque on whether he had the digests. (Trial Tr. at 643). In fact, as Burstein well knew, the digests were in Cinque’s East Hampton garage and I had held that because the subpoena was not served until the first day of trial Cinque was not required to return to East Hampton to retrieve them. (Trial Tr. at 644-45). 2. Revson’s Testimony Revson testified and told the jury of her purported unhappiness with Cinque as her lawyer, that she had found him “very difficult to speak to,” and that he was unprepared. (Trial Tr. at 63-64). She tried to explain that she gave the Mercedes to him, notwithstanding her unhappiness, because she was trying “to be very nice” and “to get his attention.” (Id. at 62-63). She explained that she had written the note to Cinque, in which she praised him, to “pad[] his ego,” because “you get better results with honey than with vinegar.” (Id. at 71). With respect to billing, when asked whether the Firm had ever reduced its fees for not having achieved a “good result,” she responded, “Absolutely not.” (Id. at 49). She also testified that she “always paid” the Firm “by the hour.” (Id. at 59; see also id. at 61). With respect to the Florida visit from Cinque and Klein, she testified that Cinque could not have worked twelve or thirteen hours on her case that week, although she acknowledged that she and Cinque worked one afternoon together on the case. (Id. at 68). With respect to the second Riviera agreement, Revson testified that the morning after the closing, Cinque telephoned her and brought up the subject of his “bonus.” (Id. at 94). She testified that in a conversation the following week: what he said was, he called me a greedy bitch. He said, You greedy bitch, you got all this money. I got all this money for you and you’re not going to give me a bonus. No other lawyer in the world could have done this for you, blah, blah, blah. I said, I’m greedy? I said, No. You’re fired. (Id. at 107-08). 3. Burstein’s Apologies Burstein purported to apologize for his conduct at least four times, in writing, prior to trial. (Cinque Decl., Exs. F (letter to Court), G, Q, T (letters to Cinque)). During trial, he purported to apologize again. On the third day of the trial, after I made an evidentiary ruling, McPherson, Bursteiris partner, made a face. I admonished her to stop making faces. (Trial Tr. at 600). McPherson responded by saying: I apologize, your Honor, I didn’t realize I was doing it. I am somewhat surprised at your ruling, and that’s the only reason I’m reacting. (Id. at 601). I commented that McPherson was “compounding the disrespectfulness” by stating that she had made a face because she was “surprised” at my ruling. (Id.). Burstein responded, “You’re a hundred percent correct, your Honor. I apologize.” (Id.). McPherson also apologized. That evening, I received a fax from Bur-stein. He raised a number of issues on the merits, but also stated the following: I want to express, on behalf of both Ms. McPherson and myself, our profound apology for any conduct on our part which Your Honor has found to be objectionable. Just as I certainly did not intend to be guilty of “games playing,” I can assure Your Honor that Ms. McPherson did not intend to be disrespectful in the least. But that is not the point. Our obligation is to act in a manner that Your Honor deems appropriate, and I promise that we will do our level best to meet that obligation. I just want to assure Your Honor that there was absolutely no intentional disrespect of the Court, and I apologize if our conduct led Your Honor to conclude otherwise. (5/19/99 Burstein Letter to the Court). The next morning, Thursday, May 20, 1999, before the start of trial, I expressed the view that Bursteiris apology, as set forth in his May 19, 1999 letter, was not “a sincere one.” (Trial Tr. at 604). I commented that the May 19th letter was similar to Bursteiris letter apologizing for the proctology letter in that both letters suggested that Burstein was not genuinely sorry for his behavior, but that instead he was merely sorry for having offended me. I expressed the view that Burstein was implicitly suggesting that I was being unduly sensitive. (Id.). I went on to state that the proctology letter and Bursteiris tactics were inappropriate and that they had given Cinque little choice but to litigate this case. (Id. at 604-07). The trial concluded that day and the jury began, but did not complete, its deliberations. The case was adjourned until the following week. The next day, I received another fax from Burstein. This letter stated: I have given considerable thought to Your Honor’s comments of yesterday morning, and I wanted to respond.... [A]s I continued to think about the matter last night and today, I had to face up to the fact that I was wrong and that Your Honor was right.... I agree with and apologize for the inadequacy of the apology contained in my letter of May 19. Having reread the letter, which was written late in the evening and under considerable stress, I can see that Your Honor’s criticism was entirely appropriate. The letter is fairly read as conveying an apology for upsetting Your Honor instead of as an apology for inappropriate behavior.... Your Honor was of course completely correct that there can be no justification for a lawyer making faces in response to a Court’s ruling, and that Ms. McPherson’s explanation substantially and wrongly exacerbated the improper conduct. ... I also want to discuss the “proctology” letter.... Upon reflection, the bulk of Your Honor’s criticism of me yesterday on that score was also correct. While I believe that this litigation would have ensued regardless of what I had written, that does not change the facts that I could not have been more wrong about sending that letter to Mr. Cinque, and that my subsequent letter to Your Hon- or should have acknowledged that error. Instead, as I unfortunately did in connection with my May 19 letter, I wrongly apologized only for offending Your Honor — thereby improperly and unfairly suggesting that Your Honor was just being hypersensitive. The fact is that the “proctology” letter was improper, offensive, and should not have been sent as written. I made a significant error in judgment, which I then compounded by not owning up to it. Aggressive litigation tactics are one thing, but I recognize that I went over the line. It will never happen again. It is important to me that Your Honor appreciate the depth and sincerity of this apology, and that, if possible, Your Honor accept it. I say this because of the great respect and admiration I have for Your Honor. Your Honor’s distaste for this case in general has been oft-stated. Similarly, and although I vigorously disagree, Your Honor has also made clear your view that Mr. Cinque has the better side of this dispute. At the same time, though, Your Honor has, as a judge should, risen above those views and given Ms. Revson an extraordinarily fair jury trial. While I believe that some of the Court’s legal rulings were erroneous and prejudicial to Ms. Revson, I also believe that this case has been a model of what a jury trial should be. In particular, I greatly appreciate and respect the fact that the Court’s anger at me and its own views of the evidence have never been exhibited to the jury in the slightest fashion.... In sum, I hope this letter adequately expresses both my remorse about my conduct and the conduct of my firm, as well as my tremendous respect for Your Honor. It is my hope that, from this point on, I can reverse Your Honor’s opinion of me. (Burstein 7/15/99 Deck, Ex. HH) (emphasis added). 4. The Verdict On May 24, 1999, the jury returned its verdict. It found that Revson discharged the Firm “without cause,” that the Firm did not breach its fiduciary duties to her, and that the Firm was entitled to recover $670,000 in fees from Revson. The jury concluded that the Firm performed extraordinary work for Revson, for it determined that the fair and reasonable value of the services provided by the Firm was more than four times what the fees would have been at the Firm’s usual hourly rates. The jury rejected Revson’s claim that Cin-que had abandoned her or sought to extort her into giving him a bonus. G. The Harm to Cinque and the Firm Burstein’s actions harmed the Firm and Cinque. Cinque explained in his summation that “[ejvery effort has been made to malign, slander and libel me” and that “Cinque & Cinque for the past year and a half ... ha[s] been subjected to some of the worst claims of fraud you can imagine.” (Tr. 754-55). In describing the damage done to his and the Firm’s reputation, Cinque explained: For a year and a half Jim and I have been living with these claims of fraud.... As lawyers, we don’t have a lot more — we don’t have an inventory. We have our integrity.... [A]nd when someone challenges us as frauds, you don’t even have to be a professional to realize that hurts. And they assaulted me in every way they could. They assaulted my brother, the firm, Cinque & Cinque. Denigrated us. Hurt us. And they succeeded. They succeeded, I am frank to tell you. (Trial Tr. at 769-70). At one of the sanctions hearings, Cinque explained: Then my life became a living hell, because once [Burstein] seized upon the concept that he was now going to accuse me of fraud as a lawyer, which is a very serious allegation, what did he do? He built upon the fraud claim consistently, claiming I’m a fraud with Ms. Revson, then I must be a fraud with all my clients. (8/25/99 Tr. at 48). He added: The letters [Burstein] was writing, could you understand possibly how I might have been so beside myself at some point where I am threatened with criminality, loss of my entire practice, 30 years down the drain that maybe I could have gotten violent with the man? Can anyone understand that? I’m not saying it would have been appropriate, obviously. But calling me a criminal? Taking my entire 30 years of existence. (Id. at 57). The Firm spent some $271,456 worth of time (at hourly rates of $325 for Cinque and $300 for James Cinque) litigating the merits and another approximately $25,000 in time addressing the issue of sanctions. In addition, the Firm incurred disbursements of $3,279.42. (Cinque Fees Decl., Ex. A; James Cinque Fees Decl., Ex. A). H. The Order To Show Cause On May 25, 1999, I issued a memorandum and order raising my concerns as to the propriety of Burstein’s and Revson’s conduct in this case and directing Burstein and Revson to show cause why I should not sanction them pursuant to Rule 11, the Court’s inherent power, and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 49 F.Supp.2d 686, 688 (S.D.N.Y.1999). In response, Burstein engaged counsel for himself and separate sanctions counsel was obtained for Revson. Burstein, Rev-son, and the Firm made extensive written submissions and I conducted hearings on August 18 and 25, 1999. The parties did not testify or call witnesses, although they were given the opportunity to do so, but counsel as well as Burstein and Cinque addressed the Court. DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Mackler Burstein and Revson raise a threshold issue: They contend that I must recuse myself—unless I accept their version of the facts—because I am not impartial and they are entitled to an “impartial fact-finder.” Quoting from the Second Circuit’s decision in Mackler Prods., Inc. v. Cohen, 146 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.1998), they argue that they are entitled to the “procedural protections appropriate to a criminal case,” including the presumption of innocence, the requirement of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a trial. Id. at 130. In Mackler, the Second Circuit held that “the imposition of a sufficiently substantial punitive sanction requires that the person sanctioned receive the procedural protections appropriate to a criminal case.” Id. at 130. The Court distinguished between “punitive” and “compensatory” sanctions, noting that a compensatory sanction did not require the “full panoply of criminal procedure safeguards” but only notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. The Second Circuit identified certain factors that may be considered in determining whether a sanction is punitive or compensatory: whether the sanction is intended to be punitive or compensatory; whether it is retrospective (ie., for past wrongful conduct); whether it seeks to coerce future compliance; whether there is an opportunity to purge; whether the sanction is payable to the Court or to the injured party; and the size of the sanction. Id. at 129. The Court held that a sanction of $10,000 imposed on a party and his attorney was punitive because the district court intended it to be punitive, labelled it as such, imposed it for past conduct without giving an opportunity to the sanctioned party and attorney to purge, and ordered the funds to be paid to the court rather than the injured party. The Second Circuit vacated the award of sanctions and remanded to the district court to consider reimposing sanctions against the attorney (the other sanctioned party did not appeal) after giving him the benefit of criminal procedural protections. Without much discussion as to the differences between punitive and compensatory awards, the Court in Mackler also held that a second sanctions award of $45,-000 was compensatory, although it vacated this sanctions award on the grounds of insufficient notice and an insufficient factual basis. Id. at 130. The $45,000 sanction was imposed for the same conduct for which the $10,000 sanction was imposed, but the $45,000 sanction was labelled by the district court a “compensatory assessment! ]” and was to be paid to the injured party for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the trial, appeal, and sanctions hearing. Madder Prods., Inc. v. Turtle Bay Apparel Corp., No. 92 Civ. 5745, 1997 WL 269505, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 1997), vacated and remanded sub nom. Mackler Prods., Inc. v. Cohen, 146 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.1998). I conclude that Mackler does not require that Burstein and Revson be awarded the procedural protections of a criminal case, and the request that I recuse myself unless I accept their version of the facts is denied. First, the sanctions that I impose are intended to be compensatory. They are to be paid to the Firm to compensate the Firm and Cinque for a portion of the time they spent litigating this case. Second, in the context of attorney misconduct, Mackler must be narrowly construed. Attorneys are officers of the court, and they have special duties to the court that non-attorney clients do not have. Courts traditionally have had the power to supervise attorneys; that power would be seriously undermined if attorneys who engaged in misconduct in a court proceeding were entitled to the criminal protections of a criminal case before the court could impose sanctions. Mackler can only mean that criminal protections are required only when the sanction is clearly punitive. Third, I have no biases against or animosity toward Revson or Burstein. Throughout this litigation my rulings were made on the merits. I gave Burstein, in particular, every benefit of the doubt. I did not sanction him when the “proctolo-gy” letter was first brought to my attention; I merely admonished him informally. I denied the requests for sanctions when I quashed the first and second bank subpoenas, even though I was troubled by Bur-stein’s conduct. Again, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. It was only because Burstein’s conduct continued that I decided to issue an order to show cause. In retrospect, my order to show cause probably should have been more neutrally worded, but I had concerns and I wanted to share those concerns with Burstein and Revson so that they would have a full opportunity to address them. The fact that I had those concerns and made them known, however, is no basis for my recu-sal. It cannot be the case that every judge who has concerns about an attorney’s conduct is disqualified from considering the question of sanctions. I have carefully considered Burstein’s and Revson’s explanations and arguments and I have carefully reviewed their voluminous submissions. I have done so with an open mind. Significantly, Burstein has previously recognized my ability to be fair. In his apology letter written to me while the jury was deliberating, Burstein wrote of his “great respect and admiration” for me. He wrote that I had “given Ms. Revson an extraordinarily fair jury trial” and conducted “a model of what a jury trial should be.” He noted also that my feelings toward him and my “own views of the evidence ha[d] never been exhibited to the jury in the slightest fashion.” (Burstein 7/15/99 Decl., Ex. HH). Finally, it is worth noting that the Local Civil Rule governing the discipline of attorneys permits a judge either to address a disciplinary matter that arises in one of his or her cases or to refer the matter to the Committee on Grievances. Local Civil Rule 1.5(f) provides: The remedies provided by this rule are in addition to the remedies available to individual judges and magistrate judges under applicable law with respect to lawyers appearing before them. Individual judges and magistrate judges may also refer any matter to the chief judge for referral to the Committee on Grievances to consider the imposition of discipline or other relief pursuant to this rule. S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. Local Civil R. 1.5(f). It is important that I consider the issue of whether sanctions should be imposed against Burstein and Revson. The proceedings occurred before me, in a case that I was supervising, and I am intimately familiar with the facts. Under these circumstances, the request for my recusal is denied. B. Revson I have decided not to impose sanctions against Revson, even though it is crystal clear that she made false statements in this case. She falsely stated, among other things, that she retained the Firm in 1994, that she did not have a written retainer with the Firm, and that the Firm had refused to provide her with contemporaneous time records. Indeed, Burstein concedes that these statements were inaccurate, but contends that Revson “had an innocent failure of recollection,” that she made an “innocent error,” or that the error was corrected. (Burstein 7/15/99 Decl., ¶¶ 58, 60, 61). He acknowledges further that Revson gave “very inaccurate testimony” at her deposition, but contends that these were “innocent failures of recollection” that occurred because Revson “had been flustered and unnerved” and “confused” at her deposition. (Burstein 8/13/99 Deck 1Í2). I am also convinced that Revson testified falsely at trial about her final conversation with Cinque, during which she alleges that he called her a “greedy bitch” and threatened to abandon her if she refused to pay him a “bonus.” The jury rejected this testimony as well, as it found that the Firm had been discharged without cause. Revson’s misstatements and false testimony are extremely troubling. Nonetheless, I am not imposing sanctions on her. First, Revson is a party and not an attorney. She is not an officer of the court and thus different considerations come into play; for better or worse a judge cannot impose sanctions every time he or she believes that a party testifies untruthfully. Indeed, it may be that under Madder Revson could not be sanctioned on the basis of what would be tantamount to a finding of perjury without being afforded criminal procedural protections first. In addition, Revson was entitled to bring an action to recover her files and to defend against the Firm’s counterclaims. Second, judgment has already been entered against Revson in the amount of $732,370, consisting of the verdict of $670,-000 plus p