When a judge or jury finds your client dishonest, they’ve decided your fate. If that dishonesty involves lying to the court, your client may never get the chance to face a jury.
A prime example is Deering v. Lockheed Martin, a case recently decided by the 8th Circuit.
Daniel’la Deering, an African-American attorney, worked at Lockheed Martin from 2002 until her termination in December 2018. At the time of her termination, she was Director and Associate General Counsel, Labor & Employment. Lockheed fired her after she allegedly mishandled a case resulting in a $51 million verdict against the company and disclosed privileged documents during an internal appeal of a negative performance review. Deering later sued for discrimination and retaliation.
During her deposition, Deering falsely claimed she was employed by nVent and implied she was struggling to find work. In reality, she had already secured a higher-paying position elsewhere. She reinforced this deception by submitting a resumé and declaration to the court, along with other documents falsely referencing nVent as her current employer. Lockheed discovered the truth just before trial when a W-2 and employment agreement revealed she was earning significantly more at her new job.
Lockheed filed an emergency motion for sanctions, and the district court dismissed Deering’s case with prejudice, citing her actions as intentional and in bad faith. The court also awarded Lockheed $93,193 in attorney fees.
The 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal, noting that Deering’s misconduct was deliberate, willful, and in bad faith. She had misled both Lockheed and the district court about her employment and salary for over a year and a half, lied under oath during her deposition, and submitted false documents. The court emphasized that as an attorney, Deering should have fully understood the seriousness of her actions, especially since the lower salary she falsely claimed could have inflated her potential damages.
Given the severity and duration of the misconduct, the district court ruled that no sanction short of dismissal would suffice. The appellate court agreed, affirming that dismissal with prejudice was within the court’s discretion as a necessary response to her bad-faith conduct.
In the end, honesty isn’t just a virtue—it’s an absolute necessity in litigation. Or to put in another way, f[rolic] around and find out.
