The Ethics of Prepping Your Client
|
|
- Rodger Spencer
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Virginia Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention March 2015 n The Greenbrier The Ethics of Prepping Your Client The Honorable Michael F. Urbanski John C. Shea Kathleen M. McCauley materials by John E. Lichtenstein and Joanna M. Meyer
2 I. Synopsis ETHICAL WITNESS PREPARATION John E. Lichtenstein, Esq. Joanna M. Meyer, Esq. LICHTENSTEINFISHWICK PLC VIRGINIA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONVENTION MARCH 26, 2015 a. Generally, preparing a client or witness for a trial or deposition includes: i. introducing the witness to the legal process; ii. helping the witness feel and be prepared to answer questions truthfully; iii. helping the witness feel and be prepared to answer questions with tactical and strategic insight into his case; iv. helping the witness understand the importance of his testimony in the larger context of the facts of the case; v. helping the witness understand the law controlling the case, including evidentiary considerations; vi. refreshing (not directing) the witness s memory if necessary and if possible; and vii. reviewing and preparing from places, things, documents, photographs, and other physical evidence that may be introduced. b. Because the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine largely protect an attorney s conduct in preparing a witness from scrutiny, a common understanding of ethical considerations and obligations promotes uniformity in practice. Compliance with the Rules... depends primarily upon understanding and voluntary compliance.... Preamble, Virginia Professional Guidelines. c. Violations of rules of ethics may result in: evidence being excluded or stricken, jury being unfavorably instructed, contempt of court, sanctions, disciplinary proceedings, criminal or civil liability, public ridicule, loss of job or career. II. Relevant Rules of Professional Conduct a. Applicability: Virginia state courts and both the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia use the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct (VRPC). See Va. Sup. Ct. R. pt. Six, II (incorporating VRPC); E.D. Va. Loc. Adm. R. 83.1(I), at 42 (applying id.) (Jan. 9, 2015); see, e.g., Lewis v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis (W.D. Va. 2001) ( While this court utilizes the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia, it must nevertheless look to federal law in order to interpret and apply those rules.... (citation omitted)). 1
3 b. Key VRPC Provisions for Preparing Witnesses i. VRPC 3.4 A lawyer shall not: (a) Obstruct another party s access to evidence...; (c) Falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely...; (h) Request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:... the person in a civil matter is a relative or... employee or other agent of a client.... ii. VRPC 3.3(a)(4) A lawyer shall not knowingly... offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer... comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures. iii. VRPC 1.2(c) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct.... iv. VRPC 8.4(b), (c) (misconduct involving dishonesty, deceit). c. Comparing American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) to VRPC: While Virginia has not formally adopted MRPC, VRPC tracks the organization of MRPC and many provisions are similar. Also, much literature on witness preparation cites to MRPC. Thus, a comparison is instructive. See attached Table Comparing Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct to Model Rules of Professional Conduct. i. VRPC 3.4 vs. MRPC 3.4: Note that in criminal cases, VRPC 3.4(h) does not exempt employees/agents from the prohibition against requesting witnesses to refuse to communicate with adversaries. ii. VRPC 3.3(a)(4) vs. MRPC 3.3(a)(3): The two Rules are similar, and despite differences in language, the substantive content of the commentaries is similar. iii. VRPC 1.2(c) vs. MRPC 1.2(d): The Rules are identical. However, compare VRPC cmt. 10 ( The lawyer is not permitted to reveal the client s wrongdoing, except where permitted or required by Rule 1.6. ), with MRPC cmt. 10 ( In some cases, withdrawal alone might be insufficient. It may be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation or the like. ). 2
4 III. Representative Issues a. Generally: Prepare client and client s witnesses for questions about past events and about present understandings/beliefs; verify truthfulness of responses; i. Versus: Allowing, condoning, suggesting, encouraging, inducing, or coaching false testimony or evasion of truthful answer (e.g., by witness saying does not remember or by telling witness not to answer during testimony under cloak of attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine), when attorney knows testimony is false, mistaken, or misleading (even if witness believes true), or when attorney has not verified truth, VRPC 3.4(c); id. 3.3(a)(4); id. 1.2(c); id. 8.4(b), (c). 1, 2 ii. Trials vs. depositions: From an evidentiary perspective, strategies for preparing a witness for trial might differ from deposition preparation strategy. See, e.g., Va. Sup. Ct. R. 4:1(b)(1) ( Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant.... It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) ( Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ). iii. Corporate representatives: The corporation must make a good-faith effort to designate people with knowledge of the matter sought by the opposing party and to adequately prepare its representatives so that they may give complete, knowledgeable, and nonevasive answers in deposition. Spicer v. Universal Forest Prods., 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77232, at *10 (W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2008) (Urbanski, J.). See also Martin v. Nordic Group of Cos., 61 Va. Cir. 13, (2003) ( Rule 4:5(b)(6), like Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules, is designed to elicit information from the corporation, not the individual deponent.... The corporation had a duty to ensure that the designee is prepared to answer questions.... ). b. Attorney-client privilege and work product limitations: Prepare client and maintain any materials for such preparation in confidence to preserve potential for attorney-client privilege or work product protection, keeping in mind that facts therein, circumstances of communication, and the nature of what is undisclosed may not be protected, see, e.g., Va. Sup. Ct. R. 4:1(b)(6)(i) (claiming privilege in discovery); id. 2: (attorney-client privilege is governed by common law); id. 2:1101(b) ( The law with respect to privileges applies at all stages of all actions, cases, and proceedings. ); Commonwealth v. Edwards, 235 Va. 499 (1988) (discussing work product protection and attorney-client privilege); see also Va. Sup. Ct. R. 2:505 (physician-patient privilege is according to statute, 3
5 including Va. Code ); id. 2:505(D) (requiring patient consent for an attorney to obtain information about the patient from a healthcare provider other than pursuant to discovery, with certain exceptions including a Rule 4:10 evaluation); id. 2:506 (mental health professional-client privilege). Monitor nature and treatment of documents and things carefully to ensure fact or opinion 3 work product is maintained if possible. i. Versus: Preparatory non-client witness s communications, not being privileged, will be subject to disclosure, including materials provided to a witness or received from a witness during preparation, absent work product-based protection. Compare, e.g., Mills v. MCC Behavioral Care, Inc., 37 Va. Cir. 225, 226 (Richmond Cir. Ct. 1995) ( Under the common law, the adverse party has a right to examine material used to refresh recollection but not those used to refresh memory prior to testimony. (citing McGann v. Com., 15 Va. App. 448, (1992) (looking to other jurisdictions to apply work-product protection to materials used to refresh a witness s memory before testifying))), with Wilson v. Rogers, 53 Va. Cir. 280, 282 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2000) ( [T]o the extent that the materials sought relate to the preparation of expert testimony for trial they should be produced. (citing Lamonds v. General Motors Corp., 180 F.R.D. 302 (W.D. Va. 1998))). ii. Refreshing memory/ federal law: In contrast to Virginia Rules of Evidence Rule 2:612 ( If while testifying, a witness uses a writing or object to refresh his memory, an adverse party is entitled to [production.] (emphasis added)) and Virginia common law, Federal Rule of Evidence 612 explicitly gives the court discretion in granting disclosure of a writing used to refresh a witness s (or client s) memory before testifying. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (duties of disclosure and protections); MRPC 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel). The privilege or protection might be waived for those writings which may fairly be said in part to have an impact upon the testimony of the witness, Brown v. Tethys Bioscience, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis , at *6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2011) (quoting Nutramax Lab., Inc. v. Twin Lab., Inc., 183 F.R.D. 458, 468 (D. Md. 1998)) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). iii. See also Va. Code ; Va. Sup. Ct. R. 2:705 ( The expert may... be required to disclose the underlying facts or data [of his opinion or inference] on cross-examination. ); id. 2:706 (experts use of learned treatises). c. Communications with adverse representatives: Counsel may inform client s witnesses (not adverse witnesses, see (iii.) below) that they may but are not obligated to talk with anyone; 4
6 i. Versus: Request[ing] a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party, which is prohibited by VRPC 3.4(h), or advising that the witness refuse to talk with opposing counsel, or discouraging communication, VRPC 3.4(a), (h); ii. Exception: If the witness is a relative, current or former employee, or other agent of client (often including retained experts) in a civil matter, and if counsel reasonably believes the person s interest will not be adversely affected by his refraining from communicating, counsel may request the witness not to talk with opposing counsel, pursuant to VRPC 3.4(h)(2). 1. Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion ( LEO ) 1639 (4/24/95): Va. Code (D) prohibits opposing counsel s obtaining information via ex parte communications with patient s treating physician. 2. See also VRPC 4.2 cmt. 7 (prohibiting communications by a lawyer with persons in an organization s control group or persons who may be regarded as the alter ego of the organization); Pruett v. Va. Health Servs., 69 Va. Cir. 80, 86 (Lancaster County Cir. Ct. 2005) (discussing different courts treatment of control group and holding no bar to communicating with former control group and non-control group employees). a. LEO 459 (7/21/82): Only if the attorney first receives permission from the corporation s counsel to communicate with [employees for the corporation that are in the position to commit the corporation to specific courses of action] may he do so. b. LEO 347 (12/4/79): There is nothing ethically impermissible with an attorney communicating with employees of a corporation adverse to the interests of the attorney s client in litigation so long as the employee does not occupy a position... that would lead one to believe the employee is the corporation s alter ego. c. LEO 1670 (4/1/96): MRPC 4.2 and VRPC 4.3 are similar in prohibiting communications with represented persons without consent of the attorney. However, the commentary to MRPC makes MRPC 4.2 a broader prohibition as compared to the VRPC commentary, and some circuit courts and federal courts in Virginia have... applied a Model Rules approach and prohibited ex parte contacts [both under a control group/ alter ego theory and in vicarious liability situations]. d. Bryant v. Yorktowne Cabinetry, Inc., 538 F. Supp. 2d 948 (W.D. Va. 2008) (Urbanski, J.) (discussing Virginia s bright line rule that attorneys may communicate ex parte with a former employee of an organization even if he was a member of the control group). 5
7 iii. CAVEAT: VRPC 4.3(b) prohibits giving advice to unrepresented persons whose interests have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the client s. 1. LEO 1795 (6/30/04): A criminal defense attorney s advising the victim-witness that she did not have to talk with the Commonwealth s Attorney did not violate VRPC 3.4(h) (general prohibition on requesting non-clients to refrain from giving relevant information to another party) but did violate VRPC 4.3(b) (prohibition on advising adverse unrepresented persons). 2. LEO 1426 (9/16/92): A criminal defense attorney improperly and unethically advised the victim-witness that she did not have to talk with the police or Commonwealth s Attorney s Office, as such advice violated [current VRPC Rules 4.3(b) and 8.4(b), (c)]. d. Court orders: Determine and follow any relevant local rules, case-specific court orders; know and consider individual judge s preferences, prior findings, or jurisprudence; i. Versus: Failing to realize subjective, case-specific mandates. e. Being straightforward: Immediately and frequently emphasize to the witness that it is imperative to tell truth, and that preparation is about how to tell the truth; i. Versus: Allowing witness to believe he or she should read between lines by giving deceptive or less-than-accurate testimony to help the case, VRPC 3.4(c); id. 1.2(c); id. 8.4(b), (c). 1 ii. LEO 1650 (9/8/95): [I]f the expert s perjured testimony is so material to the [expert opinion] that it corrupts the opinion, [counsel must] reveal the fraud to the tribunal. iii. LEO 924 (6/11/87): Finding improper the use (by implication or otherwise) of fabricated witness statements in settlement negotiations, even though opposing counsel already had the statements, because the lawyer learned of the fabrication. f. Suggestibility: Witness should be encouraged to give candid and truthful account of relevant facts before discussing applicable law; i. Versus: Explaining law and what facts are needed for strategic advantage, then asking witness if needed facts exist, in attempt to induce false testimony or to induce a witness holding some perception/memory to say a contrary perception/memory, VRPC 3.4(c); id. 1.2(c); id. 8.4(b), (c). 1, 2 g. Uncertainty in memory and perception: As necessary, manage uncertainty or gaps in perception and/or memory by providing witness with evidence or materials that 6
8 may refresh memory without supplying or creating testimony, and/or by preparing rehabilitation of credibility; i. Versus: Influencing witness to fabricate or adopt an inaccurate or nonexistent perception/memory, or to use demeanor or false testimony to assert confidence about perceptions when witness is uncertain, VRPC 3.4(c); id. 1.2(c); id. 3.3(a)(4); id. 8.4(b), (c). 1, 2 h. Mistakes in memory and perception: Correct mistakes in perception and/or memory (based on attorney s knowledge or strong belief regarding truth/accuracy, given other evidence) by providing witness with materials that reveal mistake or refresh memory (but see (b.), supra, regarding disclosure); do not elicit testimony known to be inaccurate; i. Versus: Eliciting mistaken testimony to help the case, VRPC 3.4(c); id. 3.3(a)(4). 1, 2 i. Word choice: Help witness choose words, demeanor, and manner of description in delivering truthful testimony; i. Versus: Scripting answers with words that are inaccurate, VRPC 3.4(c); id. 3.3(a)(4). 1, 2 j. Witness intends to testify falsely: Attempt to dissuade client from testifying falsely; refuse to offer false evidence; advise client of risk of ethical duty to disclose perjury; and take reasonable remedial measures, which may include disclosure, if attorney has offered material evidence and learns of its falsity; i. Versus: Allowing false testimony or not taking timely remedial measure, VRPC 3.4(c); id. 3.3(a)(4). 1 ii. See VRPC 3.3(a) and commentary (describing duty of candor to the tribunal); id. 1.6(c)(2) (requiring attorney to first request client to disclose fraud relevant to the representation on the tribunal). k. Special duties of prosecutors: Timely disclose, per VRPC 3.8(d), a witness s correction to a former position when the correction serves to exculpate the defendant, such as a witness admitting to having wrongly identified the defendant; i. Versus: Refusing to call the witness and failing to timely disclose knowledge of the change in evidence that tends to exculpate the defendant. ii. See also VRPC 3.8(a) (prohibiting maintaining a charge that the prosecutor knows lacks probable cause), (c) (prohibiting instructing a person to withhold information from defendant), (e) (prohibiting encouraging investigators or others helping with prosecution to make an 7
9 extrajudicial statement that would have a substantial likelihood of interfering with the fairness of a jury trial). iii. LEO 1862 (7/23/12): The Rule 3.8(d) ethical prosecutorial duty to timely disclose exculpatory evidence differs from the legal duty pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). A timely disclosure is one that is made as soon as practicable considering all the facts and circumstances of the case [and without intentional delay lacking justification or good cause]. 1. See also Tuma v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 629, 639 n.2 (2013) (disclosure was timely under Brady, which is not a canon of prosecutorial ethics ); Workman v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 633, (2006) (providing the analysis for violation of the prosecutorial duty first enunciated in Brady). IV. Oft-Cited Examples for Discussion a. ROBERT TRAVER, ANATOMY OF A MURDER (1958): The Lecture is an ancient device that lawyers use to coach their clients so that the client won t quite know he has been coached and his lawyer can still preserve the face-saving illusion that he hasn t done any coaching.... Maybe, [the defendant] said, maybe I was insane. See attached video clip. b. In re Attorney Discipline Matter, 98 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1996) (transcript of recording of attorney inducing redirection of client s testimony during recess) (attached). 8
10 Attachments Table Comparing Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct to Model Rules of Professional Conduct Cited Literature 1. Stephen M. Goldman & Douglas A. Winegardner, The Anti-False Testimony Principle and the Fundamentals of Ethical Preparation of Deposition Witnesses, 59 CATH. U. L. REV. 1 (2009) (focusing on the Anti-False Testimony Principal as primary obligation, and contrasting duties in a historical-record context with duties in a present-understanding context). 2. Liisa Renée Salmi, Don t Walk the Line: Ethical Considerations in Preparing Witnesses for Deposition and Trial, 18 REV. LITIG. 135 (1999). 3. Elizabeth Thornburg, Rethinking Work Product, 77 VA. L. REV (1991). Other Materials 4. Stephen D. Easton, Can We Talk?: Removing Counterproductive Ethical Restraints Upon Ex Parte Communication Between Attorneys and Adverse Expert Witnesses, 76 IND. L.J. 647, , 732, (2001). 5. Cited Legal Ethics Opinions 6. Richard C. Wydick, The Ethics of Witness Coaching, 17 CARDOZO L. REV. 1 (1995). 7. John S. Applegate, Witness Preparation, 68 TEX. L. REV. 277 (1989)). Examples for Discussion 8. ANATOMY OF A MURDER (Otto Preminger 1959). 9. In re Attorney Discipline Matter, 98 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1996). 9
Ethical Limits in Witness Preparation. Susan J. Kohlmann February 24, 2017
Ethical Limits in Witness Preparation Susan J. Kohlmann February 24, 2017 Ethical limits in Witness Preparation The line between permissible conduct and impermissible coaching is like the difference between
More informationSECTION 2 BEFORE FILING SUIT
Contents ETHICAL ISSUES IN LITIGATION... 2 HANDLING FALSE INFORMATION... 2 MR 3.3: Candor Towards the Tribunal... 3 Timing of the False Testimony Before the witness takes the stand.... 4 Under oath....
More informationSEX, and VIDEOTAPE: The Ethics of Witness Preparation. Courtney C. Shytle Patrick J. Cleary
SEX, and VIDEOTAPE: The Ethics of Witness Preparation Courtney C. Shytle Patrick J. Cleary Depositions are widely recognized as one of the most powerful and productive devices used in discovery. Since
More informationL.A. COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS COMMITTEE
L.A. COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS COMMITTEE FORMAL ETHICS OPINION NO. 497 MARCH 8, 1999 CONSULTING WITH A CLIENT DURING A DEPOSITION SUMMARY In a deposition of a client,
More informationDepositions of Company Witnesses The Ethical Rules You Need to Know
Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 777 E. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee,WI 53202 414.271.2400 Depositions
More informationADVOCATE MODEL RULE 3.1
ADVOCATE MODEL RULE 3.1 1 RULE 3.1 - MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS (a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and
More informationAvoiding Ethical Pitfalls in the Deposition Process
Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls in the Deposition Process Brant D. Kahler BrownWinick 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-2510 Telephone: 515-242-2430 Facsimile: 515-323-8530 E-mail: kahler@brownwinick.com
More informationETHICS IN DEPENDENCY PRACTICE FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM ATTORNEYS AND ATTORNEYS AD LITEM. Striving for Excellence
1 ETHICS IN DEPENDENCY PRACTICE FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM ATTORNEYS AND ATTORNEYS AD LITEM Striving for Excellence Objectives 2 Identify ethical issues in dependency practice for GAL attorneys and Attorneys
More informationDefense Counsel's Duties When Client Insists On Testifying Falsely
Ethics Opinion 234 Defense Counsel's Duties When Client Insists On Testifying Falsely Rule 3.3(a) prohibits the use of false testimony at trial. Rule 3.3(b) excepts from this prohibition false testimony
More informationEthical Preparation of Witnesses for Deposition and Trial Trial Practice
Ethical Preparation of Witnesses for Deposition and Trial Trial Practice By Erin C. Asborno December 13, 2011 James Fenimore Cooper originated the phrase "horse shedding the witness," referring to attorneys
More informationDeposition Do s and Don ts 1 hour
Deposition Do s and Don ts 1 hour Copyright 2016 by Comedian of Law LLC All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Written permission must be secured from the publisher to use or reproduce
More informationD-R-A-F-T (not adopted; do not cite)
To: Council, Criminal Justice Section From: ABA Forensic Science Task Force Date: September 12, 2011 Re: Discovery: Lab Reports RESOLUTION: D-R-A-F-T (not adopted; do not cite) Resolved, That the American
More informationThe Art and Ethics of Cross-Examination Outline
I. Cross-Examination The Art and Ethics of Cross-Examination a. What Is It? Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. You can do anything with a bayonet except
More informationREGARDING: This letter concerns your dismissal of grievance # (Jeffrey Downer) and
Ms. Felice Congalton Associate Director WSBA Office of Disciplinary Counsel 1325 Fourth Ave #600 Seattle, WA 98101 April 25, 2012 Dear Ms Congalton: And to the WA STATE SUPREME COURT Representatives is
More informationEthical Considerations on Social Media EVIDENTIARY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO BUILD OR DEFEND A CASE.
Ethical Considerations on Social Media EVIDENTIARY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO BUILD OR DEFEND A CASE. Florida Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party
More informationCheap Talk? Witness Payments and Conferring with Testifying Witnesses. Copyright John M. Barkett 2014
Cheap Talk? Witness Payments and Conferring with Testifying Witnesses Copyright John M. Barkett 2014 Introduction Witness Compensation Agreements Under Common Law In Re Robinson, 151 A.D. 589, 136 N.Y.S.
More informationPRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE FEDERAL RULE 801(D)(1)(A): THE COMPROMISE Stephen A. Saltzburg* INTRODUCTION Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) is a compromise. The Supreme Court
More informationQuestions: 1. May Lawyer file an affidavit for change of judge against Judge X in Defendant s case?
FORMAL OPINION NO -193 Candor, Independent Professional Judgment, Communication, Seeking Disqualification of Judges Facts: Lawyer practices primarily in ABC County and represents Defendant in a personal-injury
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS Definitions Adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000) Injury is harm to a
More informationCase 6:10-cv LED Document 450 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13992
Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 450 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION VIRNETX INC., Plaintiff, vs. CISCO SYSTEMS,
More informationNAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense
More information107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1 2 3 RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association reaffirms the black letter of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as adopted February, 1986, and amended February 1992,
More informationWHAT S HAPPENING TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE?
WHAT S HAPPENING TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE? PROPOSED FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502 THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2007 THE MCNULTY MEMORANDUM DABNEY CARR
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEE CANDOR TO THE COURT AND CIVILITY RULES: ETHICAL ISSUES OR PROFESSIONALISM
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEE CANDOR TO THE COURT AND CIVILITY RULES: ETHICAL ISSUES OR PROFESSIONALISM I. INTRODUCTION Nancy L. Cohen 1 March 23, 2013 The American
More informationHonorable Todd M. Shaughnessy Erik A. Christiansen Katherine Venti
Best & Worst Discovery Practices Honorable Todd M. Shaughnessy Erik A. Christiansen Katherine Venti A. Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility: Preamble: "A lawyer s conduct should be characterized
More information#6792 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
#6792 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 9 Page ID UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ------------------------------------------------------------ X IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING,
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: June 28, 2018 D-78-18 In the Matter of MARY ELIZABETH RAIN, an Attorney. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
More informationETHICS AND APPELLATE PRACTICE
ETHICS AND APPELLATE PRACTICE Presented by Paul M. Rashkind Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender Chief, Appellate Division, Southern District of Florida I. Ethics of Initiating a Criminal Appeal
More informationEmergency Ethics: To Disclose or Not to Disclose, That is the Question
Emergency Ethics: To Disclose or Not to Disclose, That is the Question Laura H. Harshbarger, Esq. Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC One Lincoln Center Syracuse, New York 13202-1355 (315) 218-8000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationDALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION TRIAL SKILLS SECTION March 8, By: Robert L. Tobey Johnston Tobey, P.C.
DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION TRIAL SKILLS SECTION March 8, 2013 By: Robert L. Tobey Johnston Tobey, P.C. www.johnstontobey.com A. Lawyers owe their clients a fiduciary duty. Breach of fiduciary duty involves
More informationFrancis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John
I. Overview of the Complaint Francis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John Alford were part of a team of Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted Michael Anderson
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO CASE NO. 91,325
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 97-04 CASE NO. 91,325 RE: ELIZABETH LYNN HAPNER / ELIZABETH L. HAPNER'S RESPONSE TO THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION'S REPLY COMES NOW, Elizabeth
More informationCase 3:16-cv HZ Document 24 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:16-cv-01721-HZ Document 24 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON KIERSTEN MACFARLANE, Plaintiff, No. 3:16-cv-01721-HZ OPINION & ORDER v. FIVESPICE
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL ACTION NO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADDENDUM. 211 Congress Street Boston, MA Tel:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPDEN, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2007-770 COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS., v. ERICK COTTO, JR., and related cases. 1 ADDENDUM Nina Morrison (NY #3048691* Senior
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 02-8286 In The Supreme Court of the United States DELMA BANKS, JR., v. Petitioner, JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to
More informationthe defense written or recorded statements of the defendant or codefendant, the defendant s
DISCOVERY AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE I. Introduction In Utah, criminal defendants are generally entitled to broad pretrial discovery. Rule 16 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that upon request
More informationCommittee Opinion May 3, 2011 THIRD PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1814 UNDISCLOSED RECORDING OF THIRD PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS In this hypothetical, a Criminal Defense Lawyer represents A who is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled
More informationFRCP 30(b)(6) Notice or subpoena directed to entity to require designation of witness to testify on its behalf.
I. Deposition Goals A. Each deposition and each deposition question should be aimed at accomplishing a desired result. 1. Determine knowledge of relevant facts and pin down lack of knowledge of relevant
More informationINFORMAL OPINION Hiring Private Investigator to Friend Opposing Party. On Social Networking Site
30 Bank Street PO Box 350 New Britain CT 06050-0350 06051 for 30 Bank Street P: (860) 223-4400 F: (860) 223-4488. March 16, 2011 INFORMAL OPINION 2011-4 Hiring Private Investigator to Friend Opposing Party
More informationdeath penalty. In prosecuting the case, State v. Michael Anderson, Mr. Alford and Mr.
I. Description of Misconduct In August 2009, Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorneys Kevin Guillory and John Alford conducted a trial on behalf of the State of Louisiana. The defendant faced the death
More information4/20/2016 ETHICS. Jasmin Mize & Ken Troccoli, AFPDs (Alex.) W E S T
ETHICS Jasmin Mize & Ken Troccoli, AFPDs (Alex.) W E S T 2 1 PROFESSIONALISM COURSE QUESTION 1-W (1 POINT) According to the VA Bar, the loss of public esteem for the legal profession stems, in large part,
More information1) The defense lawyer asked the victim/mother if he could speak with her before she spoke with the Commonwealth Attorney;
LEGAL ETHIC OPINION 1795 IS IT ETHICAL FOR A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO DISCOURAGE A WITNESS FROM SPEAKING WITH THE COMMONWEALTH S ATTORNEY? I am writing in response to your request for an informal advisory
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY. CASE No. 07-CR-0043
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Fax: 1-- Email: twood@callatg.com Attorney for Benjamin Jones IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE
More informationSelected Model Rules of Professional Conduct Ellen C. Yaroshefsky
Selected Model Rules of Professional Conduct Ellen C. Yaroshefsky Howard Lichtenstein Distinguished Professor of Legal Ethics and Executive Director of the Monroe H. Freedman Institute for the Study of
More informationKENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-430 Issued: January 16, 2010
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-430 Issued: January 16, 2010 The Rules of Professional Conduct are amended periodically. Lawyers should consult the current version of the rules and comments,
More informationAttorney Grievance Commission v. Mark Kotlarsky, Misc. Docket No. 30, September Term Opinion by Hotten, J.
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mark Kotlarsky, Misc. Docket No. 30, September Term 2016. Opinion by Hotten, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS DISBARMENT Court of Appeals disbarred from practice of law
More informationOVERVIEW. Common ethical issues. Most common grievances. How to prevent grievances. How to handle grievances. Patricia Cummings
Patricia Cummings cummingslaw@aol.com Information on Grievance process provided by Betty Blackwell, Chair of the Commission For Lawyer Discipline Video editing by SoulFull Studio, Georgetown, Texas OVERVIEW
More informationINVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS Wes Bearden, CEO Attorney & Licensed Investigator Bearden Investigative Agency, Inc. www.beardeninvestigations.com PRIVILEGE KEY POINTS WE ALL KNOW
More informationLOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B
124 NORTH CAROLINA ROBESON COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B Rule 1. Name. These rules shall
More informationETHICAL HAZARDS THAT CONFRONT CORPORATE COUNSEL
ETHICAL HAZARDS THAT CONFRONT CORPORATE COUNSEL GUEST SPEAKERS SARAH MENENDEZ Senior Litigation Counsel T +1.713.918.1039 sarah_menendez@bmc.com SEAN GORMAN Trial Partner T +1.713.221.1221 sean.gorman@bracewell.com
More informationDEQUAN SHAKEITH SAPP OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS March 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices DEQUAN SHAKEITH SAPP OPINION BY v. Record No. 011244 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS March 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal, we consider
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez
King v. Allstate Insurance Company Doc. 242 Civil Action No. 11-cv-00103-WJM-BNB IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez DENNIS W. KING, Colorado resident
More informationExcerpts from NC Defender Manual on Third-Party Discovery
Excerpts from NC Defender Manual on Third-Party Discovery 1. Excerpt from Volume 1, Pretrial, of NC Defender Manual: Discusses procedures for obtaining records from third parties and rules governing subpoenas
More informationTexas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. Texas State Bar Ethics Rules HIGHLIGHTS (SELECTED EXCERPTS)
Texas State Bar Ethics Rules Highlights Page 1 of 8 Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas Texas State Bar Ethics Rules HIGHLIGHTS (SELECTED EXCERPTS) [Page 7] Rule
More informationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Board Rules Adopted June 23, 1983 Effective July 1, 1983 This edition represents a complete revision of the Board Rules. All previous
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE. Proposed Amendment of Rule of Evidence 803.1(1)
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE Proposed Amendment of Rule of Evidence 803.1(1) The Committee on Rules of Evidence is publishing for comment a proposal to amend Rule of Evidence
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC92496 RICKEY BERNARD ROBERTS, Appellant, Cross-Appellee, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee, Cross-Appellant. [December 5, 2002] PER CURIAM. REVISED OPINION Rickey Bernard Roberts
More informationSTANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 1. Principle: A lawyer should revere the law, the judicial system and the legal profession and should, at all times in the lawyer s professional and private lives, uphold the dignity
More informationMonitoring Practitioner Compliance With Disciplinary Rules and Inequitable Conduct
Monitoring Practitioner Compliance With Disciplinary Rules and Inequitable Conduct Intellectual Property Owners Association September 11, 2007, New York, New York By Harry I. Moatz Director of Enrollment
More informationResponding to Government Investigations: What to do when the Government Knocks. Gabriel Colwell Partner Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Responding to Government Investigations: What to do when the Government Knocks Gabriel Colwell Partner Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Today s Agenda Corporate Criminal Liability Enforcement Environment General
More informationby Robert J. Permutt, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Lead, Nationwide Insurance Company Mirna M. Santiago, Esq.
by Robert J. Permutt, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Lead, Nationwide Insurance Company Mirna M. Santiago, Esq. Chair Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section, New York State Bar Association Of Counsel
More informationWHAT IS A DEPOSITION?
by Robert J. Permutt, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Lead, Nationwide Insurance Company Mirna M. Santiago, Esq. Chair Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section, New York State Bar Association Of Counsel
More informationReport of the Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Committee
Report of the Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Committee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 To the Council of Delegates: The Legal Ethics
More informationBest Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed
womblebonddickinson.com Best Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed Presentation to the Charlotte Chapter of the ACC November 1, 2017 Attorney Work Product United Phosphorus, Ltd.
More informationISBA Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion
ISBA Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion Opinion No. 13-05 May 2013 Subject: Digest: Client Fraud; Court Obligations; Withdrawal from Representation When a lawyer discovers that his or her client in
More informationThe Duty of the Prosecutor to Disclose Unrequested Evidence: United States v. Agurs
Pepperdine Law Review Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 10 4-15-1977 The Duty of the Prosecutor to Disclose Unrequested Evidence: United States v. Agurs Christian F. Dubia Jr Follow this and additional works at:
More informationLegal Truth where the duties to the Court and the Client Collide Professor Alan Paterson OBE
Legal Truth where the duties to the Court and the Client Collide Professor Alan Paterson OBE Director, Centre for Professional Legal Studies Strathclyde University Outline of Presentation 1. Introduction
More informationDISCIPLINARY PROCESS of the VIRGINIA STATE BAR
DISCIPLINARY PROCESS of the VIRGINIA STATE BAR Prepared by: Paul D. Georgiadis, Assistant Bar Counsel & Leslie T. Haley, Senior Ethics Counsel Edited and revised by Jane A. Fletcher, Deputy Intake Counsel
More informationADOPTED JUNE 19, 2013 MODEL POLICY DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE FOR RECURRING INVESTIGATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES
ADOPTED JUNE 19, 2013 MODEL POLICY DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE FOR RECURRING INVESTIGATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS 2013 1 This written
More informationDon t Leave Without Your Ethics. Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC
Don t Leave Without Your Ethics Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC Self-Serving and Sham Affidavits in New York Self-Serving Affidavit Plaintiff cannot create an issue of fact defeating summary
More informationLegal Ethics Issues for Compliance Officers
Legal Ethics Issues for Compliance Officers April 26, 2018 Hruska Law Center Lincoln, NE This page intentionally left blank. Faculty Bios Paul McGreal, J.D., joined Creighton University School of Law on
More informationAvoiding the Deposition Debacle: Tips for Successfully Taking and Defending the Insurer s Corporate Deposition
Avoiding the Deposition Debacle: Tips for Successfully Taking and Defending the Insurer s Corporate Deposition Joan M. Cotkin Nossman LLP Christopher C. Frost Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C. Darren Teshima
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationUSE OF DEPOSITIONS. Maryland Rule Deposition Use. (a) When may be used.
USE OF DEPOSITIONS {See P. Niemeyer and L. Schuett, Maryland Rules Commentary, (Third Edition, 2003), pp. 314-319; and P. Grimm, Taking and Defending Depositions: A Handbook for Maryland Lawyers, MICPEL
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and Lemons, JJ., and Compton, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and Lemons, JJ., and Compton, S.J. NICHOLAS ASTOR PAPPAS v. Record No. 052136 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS April 21, 2006 VIRGINIA STATE BAR
More informationCriminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady
Criminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady Shannon L. Taylor Commonwealth's Attorney's Office P.O. Box 90775 Henrico VA 23273-0775 Tel: 804-501-5051
More informationDISCOVERY IN DECLINED QUI TAM CASES
DISCOVERY IN DECLINED QUI TAM CASES Federal Bar Association s 2018 Qui Tam Conference February 28, 2018 Susan S. Gouinlock, Esq. Wilbanks and Gouinlock, LLP Jennifer Verkamp, Esq. Morgan Verkamp Sara Kay
More informationDRAFT REVISED NORTHERN CHEYENNE LAW & ORDER CODE TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE CODE. Title 6 Page 1
DRAFT REVISED NORTHERN CHEYENNE LAW & ORDER CODE TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE CODE Title 6 Page 1 TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 GENERAL 6-1-1 Scope, Purpose and Construction 6-1-2
More informationSection 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2
Discovery in Criminal Cases Table of Contents Section 1: Statement of Purpose... 2 Section 2: Voluntary Discovery... 2 Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2 Section 4: Mandatory Disclosure by
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA PUBLISHED Present: Judges Petty, Beales and O Brien Argued at Lexington, Virginia DANIEL ERNEST McGINNIS OPINION BY v. Record No. 0117-17-3 JUDGE RANDOLPH A. BEALES DECEMBER
More informationEthics for the Criminal Defense Lawyer
Ethics for the Criminal Defense Lawyer By: Heather Barbieri 1400 Gables Court Plano, TX 75075 972.424.1902 phone 972.208.2100 fax hbarbieri@barbierilawfirm.com www.barbierilawfirm.com TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationFROM HOLDER TO MCNULTY
McNulty Revisited How the Filip Memorandum Changes the DOJ s Approach To Corporate Investigations And Prosecutions Co-Authored By Peter B. Ladig Published in The Corporate Counselor, Vol. 23, No. 7, Dec.
More informationDELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that
More informationThe Ethics of Witness Preparation in a Coverage Case -- Prepare Your Witness.. But not TOO much!
The Ethics of Witness Preparation in a Coverage Case -- Prepare Your Witness.. But not TOO much! PREPARED AND PRESENTED BY: Joseph G. Harraka, Jr. Becker Meisel LLC 354 Eisenhower Parkway Suite 1500 Livingston,
More informationSIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
SIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Editor's Note 1: This handout contains a detailed answer explanation for each Evidence question that appeared
More informationETHICS ISSUES FOR PUBLIC ATTORNEYS
ETHICS ISSUES FOR PUBLIC ATTORNEYS Patrick R. Burns First Assistant Director Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility 1500 Landmark Towers 345 St. Peter St. St. Paul, MN 55102 651-296-3952 http://lprb.mncourts.gov
More informationEffective January 1, 2016
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Effective January 1, 2016 SECTION 1: PURPOSE The primary purposes of character and fitness screening before
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, FIRST DISTRICT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, FIRST DISTRICT Yuling Zhan, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) No: 04 M1 23226 Napleton Buick Inc, ) Defendant ) MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT S RESPONSE
More informationLEO 1880: QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
LEO 1880: OBLIGATIONS OF A COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY TO ADVISE HIS INDIGENT CLIENT OF THE RIGHT OF APPEAL FOLLOWING CONVICTION UPON A GUILTY PLEA; DUTY OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY TO FOLLOW THE INDIGENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION. v. C.A. NO. C
Gonzalez v. City of Three Rivers Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION LINO GONZALEZ v. C.A. NO. C-12-045 CITY OF THREE RIVERS OPINION GRANTING
More information3:05-cv MBS Date Filed 05/08/13 Entry Number 810 Page 1 of 16
3:05-cv-02858-MBS Date Filed 05/08/13 Entry Number 810 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION United States of America, ex rel. ) Michael
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-114 PER CURIAM. THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. JONATHAN ISAAC ROTSTEIN, Respondent. [November 7, 2002] We have for review a referee s report regarding alleged ethical
More informationRULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003
Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003 Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Filing # 45970766 E-Filed 09/01/2016 12:25:05 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case No. SC16-1323 v. Complainant, The Florida Bar File No. 2014-70,056 (11G) JOSE MARIA
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (ADOPTED 9/4/2012) INDEX ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope... 1 Rule 102 Purpose and Construction... 1 ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE... 1 Rule 201
More informationExpert Discovery: Does a Testifying Expert s Consideration of Attorney Work Product Vitiate the Attorney Work-Product Privilege?
Expert Discovery: Does a Testifying Expert s Consideration of Attorney Work Product Vitiate the Attorney Work-Product Privilege? 21 by Daniel L. Russo, Jr. and Robert Iscaro As high-stakes, complex litigation
More informationEMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE
EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE Recognized Objections I. Authority RULE OBJECTION PAGE 001/002 Outside the Scope of the Ordinance 3 II. Rules of Form RULE OBJECTION PAGE RULE OBJECTION PAGE 003 Leading 3 004
More informationCase 1:08-cr EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cr-00231-EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 08-231 (EGS) THEODORE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2013 v No. 304163 Wayne Circuit Court CRAIG MELVIN JACKSON, LC No. 10-010029-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More information