9 FSM Intrm.374-375

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

APPELLATE DIVISION

Cite as In re Sanction of Woodruff ,

9 FSM Intrm. 374 (App. 2000)

[9 FSM Intrm. 374]

IN THE MATTER OF THE SANCTION OF

ATTORNEY JAMES P. WOODRUFF,

Appellant.

APPEAL CASE NO. P2-2000

ORDER

Richard H. Benson

Associate Justice

Decided: April 24, 2000

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant: James P. Woodruff, Esq.

P.O. Box 1555

Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Appeal and Certiorari ) Briefs and Record

While it is true that in an attorney sanction appeal many items usually placed in an appendix are not relevant to the appeal, many are, such as the docket sheet or trial court's certified list, the notice of appeal, and the final order appealed from; and those items, and any other documents in the record to which the appellant wishes to draw particular attention, should be included in the appendix, but irrelevant items may be omitted. In re Sanction of Woodruff, 9 FSM Intrm. 374, 375 (App. 2000).

Appeal and Certiorari

An appellant should include in the caption only those persons or entities party to the appeal. In re Sanction of Woodruff, 9 FSM Intrm. 374, 375 (App. 2000).

Appeal and Certiorari; Attorney, Trial Counselor and Client ) Attorney Discipline and Sanctions

An attorney may appeal a sanction, but only if proceeding under his or her own name and as real party in interest. In re Sanction of Woodruff, 9 FSM Intrm. 374, 375 (App. 2000).

* * * *

[9 FSM Intrm. 375]

COURT'S OPINION

RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice:

On April 17, 2000, appellant James Woodruff filed his Motion to Dispense with Appendix. His reasoning is that many of the items typically placed in an appendix have no relevance to this appeal. The motion is denied.

While it is true that many items usually placed in an appendix are not relevant to this appeal, many are, such as the docket sheet or trial court's certified list, the notice of appeal, and the final order appealed from. Those items, and any other documents in the record to which the appellant wishes to draw particular attention to, shall be included in the appendix. The appellant may omit such items that are typically in an appendix that he deems irrelevant to this appeal.

In future filings, the appellant shall include in the caption only those persons or entities party to this appeal. See In re Sanction of Michelsen, 8 FSM Intrm. 108, 110 (App. 1997) (sanctioned attorney appeals under his own name and as real party in interest); In re Sanction of Berman, 7 FSM Intrm. 654, 656 (App. 1996) (sanctioned attorney may appeal but only if she proceeds under her own name and as real party in interest).


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA APPELLATE DIVISION Cite as In re Sanction of Woodruff , 9 FSM Intrm. 374 (App. 2000) [9 FSM Intrm. 374] IN THE MATTER OF THE SANCTION OF ATTORNEY JAMES P. WOODRUFF, Appellant. APPEAL CASE NO. P2-2000 ORDER Richard H. Benson Associate Justice Decided: April 24, 2000 APPEARANCE: For the Appellant: James P. Woodruff, Esq. P.O. Box 1555 Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941 * * * * HEADNOTES Appeal and Certiorari ) Briefs and Record While it is true that in an attorney sanction appeal many items usually placed in an appendix are not relevant to the appeal, many are, such as the docket sheet or trial court's certified list, the notice of appeal, and the final order appealed from; and those items, and any other documents in the record to which the appellant wishes to draw particular attention, should be included in the appendix, but irrelevant items may be omitted. In re Sanction of Woodruff, 9 FSM Intrm. 374, 375 (App. 2000). Appeal and Certiorari An appellant should include in the caption only those persons or entities party to the appeal. In re Sanction of Woodruff, 9 FSM Intrm. 374, 375 (App. 2000). Appeal and Certiorari; Attorney, Trial Counselor and Client ) Attorney Discipline and Sanctions An attorney may appeal a sanction, but only if proceeding under his or her own name and as real party in interest. In re Sanction of Woodruff, 9 FSM Intrm. 374, 375 (App. 2000). * * * * [9 FSM Intrm. 375] COURT'S OPINION RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice: On April 17, 2000, appellant James Woodruff filed his Motion to Dispense with Appendix. His reasoning is that many of the items typically placed in an appendix have no relevance to this appeal. The motion is denied. While it is true that many items usually placed in an appendix are not relevant to this appeal, many are, such as the docket sheet or trial court's certified list, the notice of appeal, and the final order appealed from. Those items, and any other documents in the record to which the appellant wishes to draw particular attention to, shall be included in the appendix. The appellant may omit such items that are typically in an appendix that he deems irrelevant to this appeal. In future filings, the appellant shall include in the caption only those persons or entities party to this appeal. See In re Sanction of Michelsen, 8 FSM Intrm. 108, 110 (App. 1997) (sanctioned attorney appeals under his own name and as real party in interest); In re Sanction of Berman, 7 FSM Intrm. 654, 656 (App. 1996) (sanctioned attorney may appeal but only if she proceeds under her own name and as real party in interest).