Appeals Court Upholds Sanctions Against Attorney Jill Dunn

The Second Circuit affirmed sanctions over a false declaration Dunn submitted during an SEC asset-freeze proceeding.

Updated on Nov. 5, 2026 in Financial Crime

Bold flat-color editorial illustration of a pale granite courthouse facade with tall plain columns across an empty plaza, centered on a navy and cream field. — The Second Circuit affirmed sanctions against Brooklyn trust attorney Jill Dunn after finding she submitted a knowingly false declaration in an SEC asset-freeze case. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed sanctions imposed on trust attorney Jill Dunn after a district court found she submitted a knowingly false declaration in an SEC enforcement case. The appeals court rejected her arguments that the sanctions were made in bad faith, rested on an incomplete agreement, and violated due process.

Why it matters

The ruling reinforces that attorneys who submit sworn declarations in federal enforcement proceedings can face public admonishment and monetary penalties when courts find the statements knowingly false. It also shows how a single document, such as a private annuity agreement, can determine the outcome of an asset-freeze dispute.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's public admonishment and disgorgement order against Dunn in summary order No. 25-2863. The appeals court rejected her bad-faith, incomplete-agreement, and due process challenges.

The players

Securities and Exchange Commission

The federal agency responsible for enforcing U.S. securities laws, which brought the underlying enforcement action against David Smith.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

The federal appellate court based in New York that reviews decisions from district courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

The details

Dunn received an email containing a private annuity agreement on July 21, 2010 but did not receive the complete document that day, and she later submitted a declaration stating she did not know of the agreement and had no related documents. The district court found the declaration knowingly false and made in bad faith, reasoning it was implausible she would overlook documents it described as a smoking gun on the central issue.

2010: The SEC brought its civil enforcement action against David Smith and sought to freeze assets held by a trust he and his wife established.
July 21, 2010: Dunn received the annuity agreement by email.
July 27, 2010: The SEC obtained the annuity agreement.

Legal Context

The sanctions reflect the longstanding federal practice of penalizing attorneys who make knowingly false sworn statements in court, a principle codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The decision extends that enforcement to a declaration filed during an SEC asset-freeze proceeding.

Attorneys and legal professionals handling SEC enforcement matters face sanctions for inaccurate declarations, which can affect how they prepare sworn statements. New York residents involved in asset-freeze or trust litigation may see stricter scrutiny of documents submitted to federal courts.

The takeaway

Sworn declarations submitted in federal enforcement actions carry serious consequences when found knowingly false, so attorneys should verify they have reviewed all relevant documents before attesting to what they know. Courts will weigh the plausibility of an attorney's claimed ignorance against the documents available to them.