100 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), the court finds that it may hold Goldman Antonetti vicariously liable for the sanctionable conduct of its lawyers pursuant to § 1927. In addition to the reasons articulated in Brignoli, the individual attorneys were undoubtedly aided in their representation of the Esso Defendants by other attorneys employed by the Goldman Antonetti firm who despite their absence from the courtroom must nevertheless fulfill their ethical obligations to the bench and the bar. Where the record discloses sanctionable conduct as extensive as that presented in this matter, the court finds that the law firm must ultimately shoulder its share of responsibility; thus, sanctions should issue under § 1927. Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corporation, et al., 144 F.R.D. 662, 669 (D.N.J. 1992) (<HOLDING>). Further, the sanctionable conduct here
holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined holding attorneys fees not recoverable under pre1980 version of section 1927 but remanding because they might be justified under the courts inherent power recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions to the lawyers firm or employer recognizing that an order of restitution  is available as a freestanding sanction to be imposed alone or in combination with other sanctions recognizing that sanctions under  1927 may be imposed against a law firm