This opinion affirms sanctions the trial court awarded against defendant’s attorney for filing a frivolous opposition to a motion to confirm an arbitration award. The opposition argued that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by not considering (sufficiently) exhibits that the sanctioned attorney’s client had introduced. The only authority the sanctioned attorney cited for the proposition that an arbitration award could be vacated on that ground was one that the Supreme Court had expressly disapproved on that very point. The opinion also awards additional sanctions for having prosecuted a frivolous appeal from the trial court’s sanctions order, in which the sanctioned attorney repeated his frivolous argument.