The penalty should be imposed on individuals – whether lawyers, law firms or parties – who have broken the rule or who may be responsible for the offence. The person who signs, submits, deposits or approves a document has an unsponsored responsibility to the court and, in most cases, is the person who must be punished for an offence. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held liable even if, on the basis of an application under subdivision (c) (1) (1) (A), it is established that one of its partners, partners or collaborators has violated the rule. Since such an application can only be made if the offensive document is not withdrawn or rectified within 21 days of notification of the application, it is appropriate that the law firm be normally considered co-responsible under the established principles of freedom of decision. This provision is intended to remove the restrictions imposed by the previous rule. See Pavelic – LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120 (1989) (1983 version of Rule 11 does not authorize sanctions against law firms that sign free complaints). Right now, the courts seem to think they can impose automatic sanctions. See North American Trading Corp.
v. Zale Corp., 73 F.R.D. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). The power to do so has been explicitly pronounced to overcome the traditional reluctance of the courts to intervene when one of the parties requires it. The detection and sanction of a breach of the obligation to sign, which is encouraged by the amended rule, is part of the Tribunal`s responsibility to ensure the proper functioning of the system. The certificate of allegations and other factual allegations is in hand that a complainant may sometimes have good reason to believe that a fact is true or false, but must be discovered by opposing parties or third parties to collect and confirm the basis of evidence of the allegation. Tolerance of factual allegations contained in the applicants` or defendants` initial submissions, where expressly identified as information and evidence, does not exempt the parties to the proceedings from conducting an appropriate investigation into the relevant facts in the circumstances; It is not a licence to join parties, to assert rights or to make defences without merit or justification. On the other hand, the rule requires the party not to stick to this assertion if no instruction is obtained as a result of an appropriate investigation or discovery. Subdivision (b) does not require a formal amendment to the submissions for which no support for evidence is obtained, but asks an applicant not to commit to such claims or defences thereafter.