Lawyers always must follow the rules and there are a lot of them! These include federal and state court rules, local rules and judges' individual rules. In addition, there are electronic filing rules and standing and general orders that may govern practice in a particular court. The rules may vary considerably by jurisdiction and judge. However burdensome, particularly to those practicing in more than one jurisdiction, lawyers who do not follow all of the relevant rules in every court in which they practice must face the consequences. A recent opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals serves as a reminder of the danger of lawyering without following the rules.

In Texas v. US, No. 14-5151, (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2015), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals awarded attorneys' fees to intervenors in an action initially filed by the State of Texas, in which Texas sought a declaratory judgment that its redistricting plans complied with the Voting Rights Act. Three intervenor groups challenged the redistricting plans. The district court denied preclearance of Texas's redistricting plans and Texas appealed.

While Texas's appeal from that ruling was pending in the Supreme Court, the Texas Legislature repealed and replaced the challenged plans, after which one of the intervenors asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot. Several days later, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's order denying preclearance and remanded the case for further consideration due to its recent opinion in Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) and the intervenor's suggestion of mootness.

On remand, Texas filed a motion to dismiss the preclearance action as moot, arguing that both Texas's enactment of new redistricting maps and the Shelby County opinion eliminated any basis for the court's jurisdiction. The district court agreed and dismissed the case, stating in the opinion that the intervenors could seek attorneys' fees after dismissal, which they did. Rather than opposing the attorneys' fees motions, Texas filed a three-page Advisory declaring that it was the prevailing party based on Shelby County and that it would not respond to the motions unless requested by the court to do so.

The Advisory did not mention the repeal of Texas's redistricting plans and did not respond to the intervenors' argument that they were the prevailing parties. The district court granted the intervenors' motions for attorneys' fees, finding that under Local Rule 7(b) for the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Texas waived any argument on the intervenors' eligibility for the fee awards or their prevailing party status (see D.D.C. LCvR 7(b)).

Under D.D.C. Local Rule 7(b), the Court may treat a motion as conceded if a party opposing a motion fails to timely serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. If a party responds only to some arguments raised in the underlying motion, a court may find the unaddressed arguments conceded. The D.C. Circuit showed no tolerance for Texas's failure to follow the Local Rules, admonishing Texas for it and for failing to even mention Local Rule 7(b) in its opening appellate brief. As plainly stated by the D.C. Circuit, "a material failure to follow the rules in district court can doom a party's case."

Practical Law has several resources to help practitioners stay informed about the local rules, including: