Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Top Lawyer Fights $154K Sanction in Ninth Circuit Appeal, and loses

Screenshot from Video United States Court of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit: 24-5196 Rowland, et al. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.

Written by Miss Usato. Published May 25, 2025, Last updated July 8th, 2025.

Philip Brumley — the long-time General Counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses — is being thoroughly examined in federal court for submitting what a judge called “misleading affidavits” in not ONE, but TWO high-profile child sexual abuse cases: Caekaert v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Rowland v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. This article is based on a recent video published by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, where Philip Brumley is continuing to appeal his sanction.

Jump below to “That kind of carelessness from a lawyer wastes time and money, and you’re responsible for it” For recent news

The Timeline involving Philip Brumley in these cases

August 23, 2022 — Judge Susan P. Watters of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, acknowledging that Brumley’s actions demonstrated, at minimum, a reckless disregard for providing an accurate and truthful accounting of WTPA’s role .
April 14, 2023 — Judge Watters finalized the sanctions, imposing a fine of $154,448.11 against Brumley and WTPA for the misleading affidavits submitted in the child abuse cases.
May 26, 2023 — Brumley appealed against the sanctions in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the sanctions order was not immediately appealable and seeking to overturn the decision.
May 28, 2024 — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Brumley’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the sanctions order was not immediately appealable and that Brumley had not demonstrated a clear right to relief.
May 22nd, 2025 – Philip Brumley, General Counsel for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (WTPA), was sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for submitting a declaration that a federal district court found was reckless and misleading, causing unnecessary delay in a child sexual abuse case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. He is appealing those sanctions, arguing that the statute does not apply to him. Oral arguments were heard in the Court of Appeals, indicating that the appeal process continued beyond the initial dismissal. You can find a link to the full transcript of the above-mentioned video here.
July 7th, 2025 – The Ninth Circuit rejected Brumleys defense, noting: He did not appeal that argument in the lower court, though they reviewed it. As General Counsel, he was recognized as an attorney, regardless of whether he was formally “of record.” He explicitly functioned in a legal role when signing the affidavit, which triggered the protections under § 1927.

If you are unaware of the previously mentioned cases, we have also written articles on the matters, backed up by documents.

Main issue: Can a lawyer who is not admitted to the court handling the case, and who signs a sworn declaration in a case but is not lead counsel or controlling litigation, be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927?

Back in 2020, Brumley submitted sworn affidavits asserting that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (WTPA) had no involvement with Jehovah’s Witness congregations in Montana during the 1970s and 1980s. Seems straightforward, right? Except the plaintiffs pushed back hard, showing contrary evidence that WTPA was deeply involved in those congregations during the exact timeframe Brumley said otherwise.

The court didn’t take kindly to this. In legal speak, Brumley’s affidavits were more than just “wrong” — they were deemed to show reckless disregard for the truth. That’s lawyer talk for: “You either knew or should have known you were misleading the court.”

Not surprisingly, Brumley didn’t take this lying down and filed an appeal. This is what was discussed on May 22nd, 2025. He argued that he claimed he wasn’t an attorney of record in those specific cases and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible for the sanctions.

But the appellate court is not buying it. They pointed out that the sanctions order wasn’t immediately appealable, so no dice on escaping the fine.

One judge during this asked, “Doesn’t signing the declaration as “General Counsel’ imply you’re acting as a lawyer, not just a witness?”
Concern was raised about avoiding liability through technicalities—such as claiming to be a “fact witness” instead of a legal actor.
One judge noted he reads lawyers’ affidavits differently than laypeople, expecting more care and candor.
The panel repeatedly referenced Caputo* and seemed to lean toward applying it unless there was a compelling reason not to.

Why This Matters: The Legal and Moral Stakes

This case isn’t just about one lawyer or a single fine. It’s a warning shot about the vital importance of honesty in court, especially in child sexual abuse cases where the truth can’t be fudged.

It also spotlights the duty of religious groups — and their lawyers — to be transparent about past involvements. Courts are watching, and attempts to obfuscate or mislead won’t be tolerated.

The government argued that Philip Brumley should not be awarded leniency or further opportunities to fight this case because he abused the court process five years ago, and the litigation has dragged on as a result.

“Mr. Brumley is not entitled to the graces of the judicial system when we’re here because he misled a federal district court…”

What happens now?

Appellee closed by emphasizing that Brumley’s actions undermined the judicial process and that § 1927 was designed to address precisely this type of bad faith conduct. The Appellant reiterated that Brumley wasn’t controlling the litigation and merely signed a declaration, so he shouldn’t be caught up in sanctions meant for abusive litigation tactics. The final request from Brumley’s side: “If the court doesn’t find in his favor, remand the case to determine whether his actions meet the threshold for sanctions.”

The panel announced they were going to the conference privately and would not discuss the case further with observers. A written decision will follow in the coming weeks or months.

Summary of the current position

Caputo* – Caputo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 49 F.4th 1200 (9th Cir. 2022)

It is cited as a binding precedent that interprets 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the federal statute allowing courts to sanction attorneys who unreasonably and vexatiously multiply proceedings.

Brumley is appealing sanctions imposed on him under § 1927 for submitting a misleading sworn declaration in litigation. He is arguing that he wasn’t acting as an attorney in the case, but rather just as an in-house witness or employee. The government — and the Ninth Circuit panel — invoke Caputo to refute that claim.

“That kind of carelessness from a lawyer wastes time and money, and you’re responsible for it.”

July 7th, 2025, Brumley tried to avoid accountability by claiming he signed the affidavit only as a “fact witness” and not as counsel, but the court dismissed that argument.

The panel emphasized that when he signed his declaration stating he had “direct knowledge” of corporate facts as General Counsel, he was undeniably acting as an attorney. As a result, Brumley “must satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees” exceeding $150,000. In plain terms, the court said: “Once you step into the role of a lawyer—even if you’re not formally “of record”—you are held to the standards of candor and truthfulness under § 1927.”

This ruling sends a clear message that lawyers cannot hide behind technicalities to evade responsibility for misleading the court. To Brumley, the Judge said “That kind of carelessness from a lawyer wastes time and money, and you’re responsible for it.”

Reference: Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana