Hit Send and Get Hit with Sanctions: Federal Court Orders Sanctions for In-House Counsel’s Emails

By Brett W. Johnson, Bill Ojile, Sarah E. Delaney, Carrie Schaffer, Derek C. Pershing, and Thomas Williams

Think having outside litigation counsel shields you from sanctions? Think again. A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas just publicly reprimanded a company’s in-house counsel for firing off insulting and harassing emails to opposing counsel — and warned that harsher sanctions could follow. Every in-house attorney who deals with opposing counsel should take note.

I. Background

In 2022, Legacy Exploration (Legacy) brought suit against the named defendant and several former employees for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, trade secret theft, and conspiracy. Legacy is a single-member LLC whose sole owner and in-house counsel is a Texas attorney who has been licensed for nearly 30 years. In May 2024, he began sending defense counsel numerous emails filled with ad hominem attacks, accusations of criminal conduct, and insults aimed at their firm.¹ Ten days later, he escalated by sending ten emails in 30 minutes that mocked defense counsel’s legal education, threatened malpractice claims, and vowed to depose them in ancillary state litigation.² He began copying Legacy’s outside counsel throughout, who did not take action — even after defense counsel asked them to rein him in.

II. Sanctions Against In-House Counsel

Following the fusillade of emails, defense counsel moved for sanctions against both Legacy’s in-house and outside counsel.³ On October 13, 2026, the magistrate judge granted the motion in part, finding the “emails submitted with the motion for sanctions are sufficient to support a finding that [in-house counsel] acted in bad faith, with a specific intent to harass and annoy opposing counsel.”⁴ The court called the conduct “shameful and intolerable by any litigant — and particularly so by a member of the bar.”⁵

The court did not impute its finding of bad faith to Legacy itself or its outside counsel, citing “the unique circumstances surrounding [in-house counsel’s] ownership and participation in Legacy.”⁶ Although the court stated that reasonable minds could differ on the extent that outside counsel could — or should — have intervened to curb the “abusive email outbursts,” there was no factual basis that suggested outside counsel had encouraged, ratified, or facilitated the bad-faith conduct.⁷

Because defense counsel sought only “an appropriate sanction,” the court issued a “public reprimand,” but it left the door ajar for future sanctions if in-house counsel “proves himself to be undeterred from the kind of conduct that precipitated the motions.”⁸

III. Key Takeaways for In-House Counsel

The court’s decision in Legacy Exploration highlights exposure that every in-house lawyer should understand.

Your law license goes with you. The Fifth Circuit holds attorney-litigants to a “heightened standard of conduct.”⁹ A court’s inherent sanctions power reaches parties, not just attorneys.¹⁰ In-house counsel who are not the attorney of record are not exempt, and courts may hold them to jurisdiction-specific civility standards like those adopted by the Northern District of Texas.¹¹

Every email is a potential exhibit. Legacy’s in-house counsel’s own emails were enough to establish bad-faith conduct that warranted sanctions. Write every message to opposing counsel as if a judge will read it.

Imputation of bad-faith conduct may be broad. The court relied on Legacy’s unique ownership structure in declining to impute its finding of bad faith to the company or its outside counsel. Here, in-house counsel effectively was the company, so his misconduct could fairly be treated as his own.

By contrast, a salaried general counsel acts as the company’s agent — making it easier to attribute misconduct or bad-faith conduct to the company. Without an ownership stake, courts may also expect outside counsel to restrain an attorney representative of a company. Both the company and outside counsel could then face real exposure — including monetary sanctions or a new trial¹² — for bad-faith attacks or “ill-mannered ‘Rambo’ tactics.”¹³

Stay in your lane. If a company has retained outside counsel to represent it in pending litigation, in-house counsel should avoid direct contact with opposing counsel or counterparties. Even if in-house counsel knows the opposing counsel through prior matters or industry activities, it is a best practice that the company communicate with the opposing party through counsel. In those instances where having an in-house counsel communicate directly with the opposing party may make strategic sense for the company, those communications should be vetted with litigation counsel prior to sending.

Outside counsel should not stay silent. Defense counsel also motioned for sanctions against Legacy’s outside counsel because they were copied on the emails and said nothing.¹⁴ If defense counsel observes conduct that could harm the company’s position in litigation or creates risk for sanctionable actions, they should speak up.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, an attorney “may strike hard blows, [but] he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.”¹⁵

Snell & Wilmer is actively monitoring related developments and will provide updates as they arise.