Attorney Cannot Appeal Decision in Which His Actions Are Criticized

Nisus Corporation v. Perma-Chink Systems, Inc., [2006-1592, 2007-1142](August 13, 2007)[BRYSON, Rader, Linn] The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of a practitioner who actions were deemed to constitute inequitable conduct.
SIGNIFICANCE: An attorney who is merely criticized in a judicial opinion does not have standing to either intervene in the underlying case, or appeal.
BRIEF: Mr. Teschner's actions were found to constitute inequitable conduct, and Mr. Techner sought to intervene, pointing out that he had been replaced early in the prosecution. The District Court denied his motion to intervene, although it did amend its judgment. The Federal Circuit began with an analysis of its jurisdiction over the appeal. The Federal Circuit takes the position that a Court Order that criticizes an attorney and that is intended to be "a formal judicial action" in a disciplinary proceeding is an appealable decision, but that other kids of judicial criticisms of lawyer's actions are not reviewable. The Federal Circuit concluded that in the absence of some type of formal judicial action directed at Mr. Teschner, such a an explicit reprimand or the issuance of some mandatory directive, a courts criticism of an attorney is simply commentary made in the course of an action to which the attorney is, legally speaking, a stranger. The Court concluded that Teschner lacked standing to appeal, but did note that he was not without remedy, and that he could pursue a writ of mandamus to have offending commentary expunged from the public record.