complaint was dismissable on several grounds it is thus frivolous and Plaintiffs’ counsel knew or should have known that the claims lacked merit and that the case law was adverse to their claims. Courts recognize the severity of sanctions and are thus careful in imposing such drastic measures. Courts are not to use hindsight in determining the frivolity of claims but rather look to what was known at the time of filing. Yet, in cases where it is clear that a party’s attorney should have known that there was absolutely no possibility of prevailing on the merits given the precedent against the claims, sanctions are necessary to deter such counsel from wasting the time and resources of the adversaries as well as of the court. Harbulak v. County of Suffolk, 654 F.2d 194,198 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Here, Plaintiffs’ attorney could easily have
holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal holding that fees should not be awarded where plaintiff also argued a claim under  523a6 holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under  706k of title vii a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became frivolous unreasonable or groundless or where plaintiff acted in bad faith holding that attorney fees awarded under the common fund doctrine do not constitute part of a plaintiffs claim against the defendant and cannot be considered for amountincontroversy purposes holding that attorney fees must be awarded where plaintiffs section 1983 claim was unreasonable and groundless