Now it’s just malicious. One would think there would be repercussions to the attorney.
There very well could be, if the baker's counsel has the guts to ask for them, or if the judge is annoyed enough.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
[ * * * ]
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.
[ * * * ]
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.
There's plenty. For one, he could ask the court to declare the plaintiff(s) a 'vexatious litigant'. Secondly, now that the baker's legal team has filed a counter-suit, he can request a TRO and other types of injunctions.
The key to understanding this case is that the baker won. However, since the commission members are individually indemnified, they can act with impunity as they are shielded from official actions.
I would guess the baker's lawyers are exploring the opportunity to pierce that shield, and if successful, these types of harassment lawsuits would cease.