Court Vacated Contempt Sanctions Against Attorney
The Fourth Circuit ruled that a district court failed to show that an attorney's actions caused harm to opposing parties.
Updated on Sept. 22, 2026 in Financial Crime
Live Poll
Should courts be able to suspend an attorney's license without clear proof of harm?
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated civil contempt sanctions previously imposed on attorney Pressly McAuley Millen. The appellate court determined that the lower court failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Millen's conduct caused any actual delay or harm.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies the high standard required for district courts to issue contempt sanctions, which must be remedial rather than punitive. It highlights the necessity of proving tangible harm before attorneys can be penalized for procedural errors in litigation.
The Fourth Circuit issued a 16-page opinion vacating the contempt order, noting the penalty was improperly punitive. This concludes the appellate review of sanctions that had previously suspended the attorney's right to practice in the Western District.
The players
Pressly McAuley Millen
An attorney who faced civil contempt sanctions and a suspension of admission to practice in the Western District of North Carolina.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
The federal appellate court that reviewed and ultimately vacated the contempt order against the attorney.
The details
The litigation involved an intellectual property dispute between dmarcian, Inc. and DMARC Advisor BV that spanned courts in North Carolina and the Netherlands. The Fourth Circuit found no evidentiary support that Millen’s failure to file a correction statement caused the delays cited by the district court.
Timeline
September 22, 2026: The legal opinion regarding the contempt sanctions was published.
Legal Context
This case aligns with broader judicial trends emphasizing that civil contempt must serve a remedial purpose rather than a punitive one. It underscores the high evidentiary burden courts must meet before disciplining legal counsel during active litigation.
The reversal of these sanctions removes the suspension on the attorney's ability to practice in the Western District of North Carolina. This decision provides clarity to local practitioners regarding the stringent evidentiary requirements for contempt findings in federal court.
The takeaway
The appellate ruling serves as a reminder that courts must strictly adhere to evidentiary standards when penalizing legal counsel. Practitioners should ensure all procedural corrections are clearly documented to avoid similar disputes in cross-border litigation.
Further reading
For more information on legal proceedings, visit Financial Crime.
Live Poll
Should courts be able to suspend an attorney's license without clear proof of harm?
