In re: Rudder, No. 23-10725 (5th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Levi Rudder, a non-lawyer, was sanctioned by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for engaging in unauthorized practice of law. Rudder had contacted a detainee facing federal firearm charges and attempted to involve himself in the case, despite being told not to by the defense counsel. He held an unprivileged, monitored video meeting with the detainee, offered legal advice, and encouraged the detainee to sign a form appointing him as additional counsel. The district court found Rudder guilty of unauthorized practice of law and imposed a monetary sanction of $500. He was also barred from filing documents in the Northern District of Texas without the court's permission.

Rudder appealed the decision, arguing that the district court lacked the authority to impose these sanctions. He contended that the Constitution does not afford federal courts inherent powers to sanction individuals for engaging in unauthorized practice of law.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed with Rudder's argument. The court cited previous cases that established federal courts' inherent power to police the conduct of litigants and attorneys who appear before them. The court also noted that a party cannot be represented by a non-lawyer and that a minimum level of competence is required to protect the client, their adversaries, and the court from poorly drafted, inarticulate, or vexatious claims. Therefore, the court concluded that a federal court's power to regulate and discipline attorneys extends to conduct by non-lawyers amounting to practicing law without a license. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanctions on Rudder and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Download PDF

Case: 23-10725 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ No. 23-10725 ____________ In re Levi Rudder, ______________________________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 30, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-MC-4 ______________________________ Before Jones, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Pro se Appellant Levi Rudder challenges the district court’s imposition of sanctions on him for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in a criminal proceeding. Rudder argues that the district court lacked the authority to impose these sanctions. We AFFIRM. I. BACKGROUND On the Government’s motion, the district court held a hearing to allow Levi Rudder to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for the unauthorized practice of law. The court found that Rudder, who is not admitted to any bar or licensed to practice law, contacted a represented detainee facing federal firearm charges in the district court and attempted to interject himself into the case. Despite defense counsel’s instruction to Rudder that he should not contact the detainee again, Rudder, among other things, engaged in an unprivileged, monitored video meeting with the detainee, offered the Case: 23-10725 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 No. 23-10725 detainee legal advice, and encouraged the detainee to sign a form appointing Rudder as his additional counsel. As such, the court determined that Rudder had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Having made these findings, the court exercised its inherent powers and ordered Rudder to pay a monetary sanction of $500 and barred him from filing documents in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas without first obtaining the court’s permission.1 The court also: (1) admonished Rudder that it is illegal to practice law without a law license and that doing so could subject him to additional sanctions; (2) ordered Rudder to cease his unauthorized practice of law; and (3) informed the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the State of Texas of the sanctions imposed against Rudder in this case. Rudder appeals from that order. II. ANALYSIS On appeal, Rudder argues that the Constitution does not afford federal courts inherent powers to sanction individuals for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and, therefore, the district court erred in sanctioning him. But federal courts have the inherent power to police the conduct of litigants and attorneys who appear before them. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132–33 (1991) (“[A] federal court has the power to control admission to its bar[.]”); see also In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Generally, a party “cannot be represented by a nonlawyer[.]” Raskin ex rel. JD v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 69 F.4th 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2023) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1654) (citation and quotations omitted). Indeed, requiring “a minimum level of competence protects not _____________________ 1 This filing bar does not encompass a separate case in the Northern District of Texas which was pending at the time the district court sanctioned Rudder and in which Rudder was a party. 2 Case: 23-10725 Document: 43-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2024 No. 23-10725 only the [client] but also his or her adversaries and the court from poorly drafted, inarticulate, or vexatious claims.” Id. at 286 (alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted). “It follows logically,” then, “that a federal court’s power to regulate and discipline attorneys appearing before it extends to conduct by nonlawyers amounting to practicing law without a license.” United States v. Johnson, 327 F.3d 554, 560 (7th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Jones, No. 21-3252, 2023 WL 1861317, at *10 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023); cf. Priestley v. Astrue, 651 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The district court . . . has the authority to regulate [the unauthorized practice of law] through local rules and an array of appropriate sanctions.”). Thus, a court may resort to its inherent powers to sanction a person engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Johnson, 327 F.3d at 560. Having carefully reviewed Rudder’s brief and the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanctions.2 See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 55, 111 S. Ct. at 2138; Ben E. Keith Co. v. Dining All., Inc., 80 F.4th 695, 701–02 (5th Cir. 2023). AFFIRMED. _____________________ 2 Rudder’s only argument is that the district court lacked authority to sanction him. To the extent he challenges the propriety of the sanctions for some other reason, he inadequately briefed this additional reason and therefore forfeited it. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits an argument . . . by failing to adequately brief the argument on appeal.”); see also FED. R. APP. P. 28(a). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.