Zorn v. Smith, 2011 VT 10 (Burgess, J.) (Dooley, J., joined by Justice Johnson, dissents.)

Plaintiff Robert E. Zorn appeals pro se from an order prohibiting him from filing any additional documents with the Rutland Superior Court clerk except through a licensed attorney. We affirm the trial court’s order except in two respects. First, the order is clarified to limit its pleading restriction to this particular case and, second, the order is modified to permit Zorn to demonstrate financial inability, if any, to comply with the order. We affirm the trial court’s decision as fully within its discretion.

The superior court followed the procedure of Rule 11. The court identified five filings that plainly violated Rule 11. The filings were repetitive and unsupported by fact or law. The reasonable expectation of the trial court, given Zorn’s habit, was that Zorn would continue to file unreasonable and wasteful motions, demands, and papers. Sanction was warranted under the rule. The sanction imposed here was supported and reasonable under the circumstances, when limited to this case and provided that Zorn has the opportunity to prove a lack of means necessary to comply with the court’s order.

Justice Dooley joined by Justice Johnson dissent because the sanction upheld, even as narrowed by the majority, is the most restrictive sanction a court can impose short of an outright prohibition on future access to the court and in this case is de facto such a prohibition. It is inconsistent with the right of access for all litigants contained in Chapter I, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution. It was imposed with no consideration of less restrictive alternatives, and less restrictive alternatives exist in this case.