DR 7-107: The ABA's Sanction Against Extrajudicial Statements by Attorneys
|
|
- Naomi Phillips
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DR 7-107: The ABA's Sanction Against Extrajudicial Statements by Attorneys Disciplinary Rule 7-107(G)' imposes a sanction upon lawyers participating in civil litigation who make extrajudicial statements on specific topics which they reasonably could have expected to be disseminated through the media. This rule has received conflicting treatment in the courts. The few state courts which have dealt with the disciplinary rule have discussed it without questioning its constitutional validity. The courts have merely applied the "reasonable likelihood" standard contained in the rule and ruled on whether the fact situation presented violated that rule.% Federal courts which have treated DR 7-107(G) have either failed to give it effects or held it uncon~titutional.~ Federal courts 1. MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY [hereinafter cited as MODEL CODE] DR 7-107(G) (1980). A lawyer or law firm associated with a civil action shall not during its investigation or litigation make or participate in making an extrajudicia1 statement, other than a quotation from or reference to public records, that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication that relates to: (1) Evidence regarding the occurrence dr transaction involved. (2) The character, credibility, or criminal record of a party, witness, or prospective witness. (3) The performance or results of any examinations or tests or the refusal or failure of a party to submit to such. (4) His opinion as to the merits of the claims or defenses of a party, except as required by law or administrative rule. (5) Any other matter reasonably likely to interfere with a fair. trial of the action. Id. 2. See In re Crumpacker, 269 Ind. 630, 383 N.E.2d 36 (1978) (distribution of attorney's brief to over eighty lawyers and judges who were not associated with the case violated DR 7-107(G); In re Richmonds, 285 Or. 469, 591 P.2d 728 (1978) (distributing letters to the Governor, legislators, and newspaper editors informing them about the pending proceeding did not violate disciplinary rules); In re Porter, 268 Or. 417,521 P.2d 345 (1974). cert. denied, 419 U.S (1974) (attorneys who revealed to the press the substance of a witness' deposition testimony, expected offer to settle and subsequent refusal of offer were reprimanded for violating DR 7-107(G)). 3. See In re Halkin, 598 F.2d 176 (D.C. Cir. 1979); Ruggieri v. Johns-
2 188 The Journal of the Legal Profession in Hirschkop u. Sne~d,~ Chicago Council of Lawyers u. Bauer,O and Shadid u. Jackson7 held that DR 7-107(G) is unconstitutional. The courts in both Hirschkop and Bauer declared the rule overbroad.8 Narrower means are available to protect a civil trial from suffering from prejudicial pretrial publi~ity.~ These means include court orders,1 venue change, c~ntinuance,~~ voir dire examination, jury sequestration and jury instruction^.'^ The Bauer court dissected DR 7-107(G), giving an opinion on the constitutionality of its subsections. The first sub~ection,~~ a prohibition of comment on relevant evidence in a civil trial, is an overly broad restriction because it would prevent an attorney from disclosing important information to the public. For example, it would forbid disclosure of the government's negligent manner of performing certain important tasks even if they were deemed relevant evidence." Prohibiting comment on character evidence was also held unacceptable.16 When law suits bring a public official's character or credibility into question, the public has a legitimate interest in an informed attorney's opinions relating to the public official.l6 The subsection17 which forbids an attorney from expressing his opinion on the merits of the case in which he is participating was held to be so overbroad that it would even - prevent an at- Manville Prods. Corp., 503 F. Supp (D.R.I. 1980). 4. See Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1979); Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912 (1976); Shadid v. Jackson, 521 F. Supp. 85 (E.D. Tex. 1981). 5. Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1979) F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912 (1976). 7. Shadid v. Jackson, 521 F. Supp. 85 (E.D. Tex. 1981). 8. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at 373; Bauer, 522 F.2d at Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at 373; see also Ruggieri, 530 F. Supp. at 1039 Cjury selection can control prejudice from pretrial publicity). 10. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at Shadid, 521 F. Supp. at Ruggieri, 503 F. Supp. at The court noted that once jurors have been instructed on the "solemnity of their services, they rise to the occasion and express their opinions candidly." Further, the court stated that studies have not shown that upon being instructed to abstain from reading or discussing media coverage of the case jurors will do otherwise. Id. at MODEL CODE, supra Note 1, DR 7-107(G)(1) (1980). 14. Bauer, 522 F.2d at Id. at Id. 17. MODEL CODE, supra Note 1, DR 7-107(G)(4) (1980).
3 Extrajudicial Statements 189 torney from writing a law review article on the subject.'' Finally, the last subsectionle was regarded as so vague and overbroad that it left attorneys uncertain about the boundaries of protected speech and hence chilled the exercise of their first amendment rights.20 The court in Shadid, however, viewed the disciplinary rule as a prior re~traint.~' A prior restraint which restricts first amendment freedom of expressionz2 carries with it a heavy burden against its constitutionality.23 [T]o overcome its presumptive invalidity... a prior restraint must: (1) be necessary in order to prevent a direct, immediate, and irreparable harm; (2) sweep no more broadly than necessary to accomplish its purpose; (3) be accompanied by procedural safeguards to minimize the danger of suppressing constitutionally-protected speech." Having met none of these requirements, DR 7-107(G) was constitutionally infirm.26 Although it was held in Hirschkop and Bauer that DR 7-107(G) did not constitute a prior restraint, those courts did note similarities between the rule and a prior restraint. The disciplinary rule is like a prior restraint in that both are punishable by the court's contempt power.2s The rules are different in that a prior restraint is enforceable through the court's adjudicative capacity while disciplinary rules are enforceable through the court's legislative capacity.a7 Further, unlike a violation of a prior restraint which is punishable even though the restraint may have been unconstit~tional,~~ a violation of the disciplinary rule may be de- 18. Bauer, 522 F.2d at MODEL CODE, supra Note 1, DR 7-107(G)(4) (1980). 20. Bauer, 522 F.2d at Shadid, 521 F. Supp. at See In re Primo, 436 U.S. 412, 431 (1978) (litigation can serve as a "vehicle for effective political expression"); Halkin, 598 F.2d at 187 ("litigation itself is a form of expression protected by the first amendment"). 23. Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, (1976) (quoting Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971). 24. Shadid, 521 F. Supp. at Id. at Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at 369; Bauer, 522 F.2d at See In re Oliver, 452 F.2d 111, (7th Cir. 1971). 28. See Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967).
4 190 The Journal of the Legal Profession fended on the grounds that the rule was unconstitutional.as Finally, the rule is distinct from a prior restraint because a prior restraint forbids all comment on the subjects0 while this rule only forbids speech which threatens to prejudice the judicial proceeding^.^^ Provisions in DR which deal with restrictions imposed on attorneys participating in criminal trials have fared better than the 7-107(G) provision. For the most parts2 these non-7-107(g) provisionsss have been upheld as constitutional. In Bauer, however, the court stated that the disciplinary rule resembled a prior re- straint closely enough to warrant strict ~crutiny.~' Thus, the court required that before the proscriptions in DR could apply, the attorney's extrajudicial statements must pose a "serious and imminent threat" to a fair trial.s6 According to the Hirschkop court, the serious and imminent threat test is not necessary and may not even be desirable.se Shep- pard v. Maxwells7 is cited as an example that this test is too stringent to protect the trial from prejudicial pretrial p~blicity.~~ Since 29. Oliver, 452 F.2d at Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 560 (1975). 31. See Waldo v. Lakeshore Estates, Inc., 433 F. Supp. 782, (E.D. La. 1977). 32. See Note, The Free Speech-Fair Trial Controversy: DR 7-107, 37 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 219, 223 (1980) (Bauer held that post-trial and civil trial restraints on speech are unconstitutional; Hirschkop held the same, adding restraints on comments during a criminal bench trial are also unconstitutional). 33. MODEL CODE supra Note 1, DR (1980). 34. Bauer, 522 F.2d at Id. at 249. For a more in-depth discussion of the test the Bauer court applied to DR as compared to the test the Hirschkop court applied, see Note, supra note 32; Recent Developments, Constitutional Law-Attorney's Right to Free Speech Versus Protection of Fair Trial-DR Restricting Attorney's Speech During Pending Litigation Only Constitutional to Protect Crirninal Jury from Reasonable Likelihood of Prejudice, 25 VILL. L. REV. 522 ( ). 36. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). 38. The Sheppard court employed a reasonable likelihood test to determine whether the pretrial publicity had prejudiced defendant's trial. Since they found it was reasonably likely that the trial had been prejudiced, defendant was granted a new trial. Id. Apparently, the Hirschkop court interpreted this to mean that a test requiring a greater showing of prejudice than the reasonable likelihood test would not protect a trial from prejudicial pretrial publicity such as that which occurred in Sheppard.
5 Extrajudicial Statements 191 DR enumerates specific subjects on which attorneys are prohibited from commenting extrajudicially, the standard contained within the rule itself suffices to provide notice to the attorney^.^^ This standard directs that an attorney shall not make statements reasonably likely to prejudice a trial.'o Disciplinary sanctions are justifiably imposed upon lawyers as opposed to non-lawyers because lawyers, as officers of the court, are charged with protecting the judicial system from factors which could lead to an unfair trial." Additionally the sanctions are justified because lawyers are, in general, subject to disciplinary measures which non-lawyers are not.'= Another justification for these sanctions is that lawyers have easier access to information than do non- lawyer^.'^ The public recognizes this and consequently accepts as true the contents of a. lawyer's extrajudicial comments." This could prejudice the case on which the lawyer is commenting since he will present only the favorable side of the case.46 Besides prejudicing the public, and hence possible jurors, these types of extrajudicial statements can lead the public to expect "justice" to be done as the lawyer has advocated it should. If, however, the judge, after hearing all sides of the case, decides against the side presented so favorably in the press, the public may become disillusioned with the integrity of the judicial system.46 That police officers and others can and do supply the press with much of the information to which the attorney is privy is not a valid argument against allowing disciplinary sanctions against lawyers;" the standard of ethics for lawyers is not F.2d at 368. Contra In re Halkin, 598 F.2d 176, 193 n.42 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (The reasonable likelihood standard is insufficient; "[tlhe protection afforded expression by the First Amendment would be illusory if every conceivable threat to an important public interest, no matter how remote or speculative were sufficient to justify a restriction of speech."). 40. MODEL CODE, supra Note 1, DR 7-107(G) (1980); Recent Developments, supra note 35, at Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at 370; In re Rachmiel, 90 N.J. 646, -, 449 A.2d 505, 511 (1982). 42. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at Bauer, 522 F.2d at Id. 45. Note, Professional Ethics, 47 FLA. B.J. 322, 322 (1973). 46. Id. 47. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at 370.
6 192 The Journal of the Legal Profession that which is the standard of the marketpla~e.'~ Perhaps the differential treatment given restraints on extrajudicial comments concerning civil cases and those concerning criminal cases is justified by the distinction^^^ drawn between civil and criminal trials. Several characteristics which are alleged to be attributable only to one type trial, however, may in reality characterize both. The argument has been made that restraints on comments regarding a criminal trial should be allowed because, constitutionally, a criminal defendant is guaranteed a "fair trial"60 while a civil litigant is only guaranteed a right to "trial by jury."61 As the Hirschkop court noted, after a criminal defendant's case has received what he would consider prejudicial publicity, he may so distrust the possibility of ever securing an impartial jury, even if granted a postponement or transfer of his case, that he would waive his right to a jury trial.62 Surely this reasoning applies as well to a civil litigant's situation. If it does, the concern over prejudicial publicity renders a civil litigant's right to a choice of trial by jury meaningless. Another factor alleged to differentiate civil and criminal trials is that civil litigation often raises social issues and, therefore, participants in civil trials should be allowed greater freedom of disclosure so information regarding these important issues can be disseminated to the public.63 This implies that social issues do not arise in criminal cases. As the Bauer court noted, however, the public does have an interest in issues raised in criminal trials. Often the issues raised serve to provide a check on g~vernment.~ Further, a lawyer in a criminal case may be in the best position to attack the constitutionality of a statute.66 These are important issues and warrant being aired for public information. Then, the ar- 48. Id. 49. For a full listing and discussion of the distinctions see Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at 373; Bauer, 522 F.2d at 257; Ruggieri, 503 F. Supp. at See U.S. CONST. amend VI (stating, "In all criminal prosecutions, the ac- cused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...."). 51. See U.S. CONST. amend VII. 52. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at Id. at 373; Bauer, 522 F.2d at 257; Ruggieri, 503 F. Supp. at Bauer, 522 F.2d at Id. at 253.
7 Extrajudicial Statements 193 gument used in the Hirschkop court for support of less restraint on comments in civil cases can also be used to support less restraint on comments in criminal cases. That is, the first amendment protects timeliness as well as content of spee~h.~" Other arguments made which attack the validity of DR 7-107(G) can also be rebutted. The rule is undesirable, according to the court in Hirschkop, since narrower means are available to protect a trial from prejudicial pretrial publi~ity.~' These means, such as voir dire examination, grant of continuance, and venue change can also be effectively utilized to prevent prejudice in a criminal trial. For instance, in State u. Wixon," the court held that any danger of prejudice from pretrial publicity was nullified by defendant's opportunity to check for prejudice during voir dire examination and by the lapse of time from the publication of the prejudicial remarks to the commencement of the trial. Instructions to a jury sitting for a civil trial provides another check on prejudicial publi~ity.~~ In Ruggieri u. Johns Mansville Products Corp., the court stated that "no studies [have disproven] the conclusion that overwhelmingly Ijurors] will follow [the] instructions of the court not to read any news accounts of the case, discuss the evidence or place themselves in any prejudicial ambiance.""o Since juries for civil and criminal trials are drawn from the same group of citizens, the above rationale should apply to juries in general, whether they sit on criminal or civil trials."' A danger attributed to DR 7-107(G) is that, fearing reversal or grant of a new trial on appeal, a trial court will seek to prevent error such as prejudicial publicity by attempting to restrain all comment on the case."= As a result, "free speech may lose out to fair trial."e3 The Ruggieri court, however, only uses this argument to refute the validity of DR 7-107(G). That this situation would apply to judges in criminal as well as civil trials is obvious. 56. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at 373 (citing Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 268 (1941)). 57. Id Wash. App. 63, -, 631 P.2d 1033, 1039 (1981). 59. Ruggieri, 503 F. Supp. at Id. 61. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at (Widener, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Recent Developments, supra note 35, at Ruggieri, 503 F. Supp. at Id.
8 194 The Journal of the Legal Profession Disciplinary Rule 7-107(G) has also been distinguished from the provisions pertaining to criminal trials in that it is governed by the "reasonable likelihood" standard whereas the criminal provisions are governed by the "serious and imminent threat" standard.64 This distinction is unsupported since as the rules are written, both are governed by the reasonable likelihood standard?" The serious and imminent threat standarde6 is merely a court imposed standard. The standard could be imposed by a court upon the civil section as easily as it was the criminal section. No court has, however, chosen to do so. "The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence[s] whether of private talk or public print."'j7 This philosophy is mirrored in the disciplinary rules.e8 An ABA Ethical Opinion states that in keeping with this policy, an attorney is forbidden from calling press conferences and the like to initiate publicity on his civil case.6b The courts in Hirschkop, Bauer and Shadid did not follow this prohibition. These decisions allow attorneys participating in civil litigation in those jurisdictions to initiate all the publicity they desire without guide from ethical rules. Surely,'this violates the theory of the judicial system. Conclusion It is not suggested that because the distinctions drawn between civil and criminal trials are weak that all of DR should be considered void. Rather, it is suggested that, in keeping with the theory of our legal system, restrictions should be placed upon extrajudicial comments made of a civil trial as well as those made regarding criminal trials.70 As Judge Phillips concurring in 64. Id. at MODEL CODE, supra Note 1, DR 7-107(G) (1980); see Note, supra note 32, at 227; Recent Developments, supra Note 35 at This standard is imposed by Bauer, 522 F.2d CBS v. Young, 522 F.2d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 1975) (quoting Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907)). 68. See Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Op (1972). 70. See Note, supra 32, at 233; Recent Developments, supra note 35, at 536.
9 Extrajudicial statements 195 Hirschkop noted, restraints in civil trials are important.?' Further, he suggests that DR 7-107(G) can be revised to be made con~titutional.~~ Restrictions on speech are constitutional if they satisfy two criteria: (1) the restraint must promote a substantial governmental interest which is unrelated to the speech to be suppressed; (2) the restraint must be no broader than necessary to satisfy the governmental interest.73 DR 7-107(G) satisfies the first criterion because it seeks to promote fair adjudication.?' However, the rule fails to meet the second criterion as it has been determined to be overbroad.76 One reason for the overbreadth is the rule extends for an indefinite period of time.76 It imposes a restraint on comments which begins before trial and remains intact years afterward, until all appeals have been taken.?? Time restrictions are more specific and less extensive in the criminal section^.?^ If patterned after the criminal sections, DR 7-107(G) might survive constitutional attack. Until revised, the rule stands no chance of surviving in federal courts. Dehryl A. Mason 71. Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at Id. 73. Id. at Id. 75. See Hirschkop, 594 F.2d at 373; Bauer, 522 F.2d at Halkin, 598 F.2d at 183; see Ruggieri, 503 F. Supp. at Ruggieri, 503 F. Supp. at 1039 (citing Bauer, 522 F.2d at 258.) 78. Halkin, 598 F.2d at 183.
Eugene Hamill. Volume 25 Issue 3 Article 5
Volume 25 Issue 3 Article 5 1980 Constitutional Law - Attorneys' Right to Free Speech Versus Protection of Fair Trial - DR 7-107 Restricting Attorneys' Speech during Pending Litigation only Constitutional
More informationKemner v. Monsanto Company: The Illinois Supreme Court Confronts the Free Speech/Fair Trial Controversy, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev.
The John Marshall Law Review Volume 20 Issue 3 Article 10 Spring 1987 Kemner v. Monsanto Company: The Illinois Supreme Court Confronts the Free Speech/Fair Trial Controversy, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 581
More informationThe Free Speech-Fair Trial Controversy: D R 7-107
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 37 Issue 1 Article 12 Winter 1-1-1980 The Free Speech-Fair Trial Controversy: D R 7-107 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr
More informationGentile v. State Bar of Nevada: ABA Model Rule 3.6 as the Constitutional Standard for Reviewing Defense Attorneys' Trial Publicity
SMU Law Review Volume 46 Issue 1 Article 13 1993 Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada: ABA Model Rule 3.6 as the Constitutional Standard for Reviewing Defense Attorneys' Trial Publicity John Fletcher Follow
More informationControlling Pre Trial Publicity
Controlling Pre Trial Publicity A court is obligated to try to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial. Doing this may include controlling the information released by the press. The US DOJ issued the
More informationFair Trial and Free Press: The Courtroom Door Swings Open
Montana Law Review Volume 45 Issue 2 Summer 1984 Article 7 July 1985 Fair Trial and Free Press: The Courtroom Door Swings Open Steve Carey University of Montana School of Law Follow this and additional
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA. Plaintiffs, Defendants.
1 1 1 Kathleen L. Wieneke, Bar #01 Christina Retts, Bar #0 Nicholas D. Acedo, Bar #0 STRUCK, WIENEKE & LOVE, P.L.C. 0 West Ray Road, Suite 00 Chandler, Arizona Telephone: (0) -00 Fax: (0) -1 kwieneke@swlfirm.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Comments of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law on the Proposed Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
More informationSUPERIOR COUT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 MARC J. VICTOR, P.C. 0 S. Alma School Road, Suite Chandler, AZ Telephone: (0 - Fax: (0-0 Marc J. Victor SBN 0 Marc@AttorneyForFreedom.com Charity Clark SBN 0 Charity@AttorneyForFreedom.com
More informationConstitutional Law: Gag Me with a Prior Restraint: A Chilling Effect that Sends Shivers down the Spines of Attorneys and the Media
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Law Reviews 3-1-1987 Constitutional
More informationCriminal Law and Procedure
Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 16 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey Article 9 January 1986 Criminal Law and Procedure Elisa R. Paisner Michael S. Williams Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev
More informationEthics Informational Packet COMMUNICATION WITH ADVERSE PARTY. Courtesy of The Florida Bar Ethics Department
Ethics Informational Packet COMMUNICATION WITH ADVERSE PARTY Courtesy of The Florida Bar Ethics Department 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Florida Ethics Opinions Pg. # (Ctrl + Click) OPINION 09-1... 3 OPINION 90-4...
More informationCommentary: Pre-Trial Publicity: Can There Be a Fair Trial When the Press and the Prosecutor Join Hands?
University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 25 Number 2 Fall, 1994 Article 5 1994 Commentary: Pre-Trial Publicity: Can There Be a Fair Trial When the Press and the Prosecutor Join Hands? Ruth G. Allen Follow
More informationCampbell Law Review. Mattei Radu. Volume 29 Issue 3 Spring Article 4. April 2007
Campbell Law Review Volume 29 Issue 3 Spring 2007 Article 4 April 2007 The Difficult Task of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6: Balancing the Free Speech Rights of Lawyers, the Sixth Amendment Rights
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SOUTHERN DISTRICT 05-S-2396 to State of New Hampshire. James B. Hobbs. Opinion and Order
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH, SS SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT 05-S-2396 to 2401 State of New Hampshire v. James B. Hobbs Opinion and Order Lynn, C.J. The defendant, James B. Hobbs, is charged
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - Alexandria Division -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - Alexandria Division - IN RE: BLACKWATER ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT LITIGATION Case No. 1:09-cv-615 Case No. 1:09-cv-616 Case No. 1:09-cv-617
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 informationThe Free Press-Fair Trial Dilemma: New Dimensions in a Continuing Struggle
Hofstra Law Review Volume 6 Issue 4 Article 5 1978 The Free Press-Fair Trial Dilemma: New Dimensions in a Continuing Struggle John Pacht Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr
More informationJournalistic Media and Fair Trial
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 1969 Journalistic Media and Fair Trial William M. Ware Gerard D. DiMarco Follow this and additional works at: http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev
More informationSixth Amendment--Public Trial Guarantee Applies to Pretrial Suppression Hearings
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 75 Issue 3 Fall Article 13 Fall 1984 Sixth Amendment--Public Trial Guarantee Applies to Pretrial Suppression Hearings Logan Munroe Chandler Follow this and
More informationCase 3:16-cr BR Document 1600 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1600 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 8 Jason Patrick, Pro Se c/o Andrew M. Kohlmetz, OSB #955418 Tel: (503 224-1104 Fax: (503 224-9417 Email: andy@kshlawyers.com IN THE UNITED STATES
More informationLouisiana State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct Committee
Louisiana State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct Committee 1 November 21, 2005 Lawyer as a Witness A lawyer who is likely to be a witness in a lawsuit may not act as advocate at a trial unless
More informationCase 1:08-cr Document 439 Filed 06/16/10 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 439 Filed 06/16/10 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ROD BLAGOJEVICH, et al. ) ) ) ) ) No.
More informationETHICS OPINION
ETHICS OPINION 140519 Facts: The office of the Commissioner of Political Practices ( COPP ) is a small state agency with a limited budget and a staff of six people. Two of the six COPP staff are attorneys
More informationAppellate Division, First Department, Courtroom Television Network LLC v. New York
Touro Law Review Volume 21 Number 1 New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2004 Compilation Article 16 December 2014 Appellate Division, First Department, Courtroom Television Network LLC v. New York
More information*************************************** NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
State v. Givens, 353 N.J. Super. 280 (App. Div. 2002). The following summary is not part of the opinion of the court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, portions of the opinion may not have
More informationLA. REV. STAT. ANN. 9:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]: (1) Arbitration organization means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration
More informationCase 3:16-cr TJC-JRK Document 31 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID 102
Case 3:16-cr-00093-TJC-JRK Document 31 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID 102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 3:16-cr-93-TJC-JRK
More informationGOODING v. WILSON. 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972).
"[T]he statute must be carefully drawn or be authoritatively construed to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of application to protected expression." GOODING v. WILSON 405 U.S. 518,
More informationAPPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT (2000)
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 10 Spring 4-1-2001 APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT. 2348 (2000) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj
More informationThird, it should provide for the orderly admission of evidence.
REPORT The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, most state rules, and many judges authorize or require the parties to prepare final pretrial submissions that will set the parameters for how the trial will
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-17-00366-CR NO. 09-17-00367-CR EX PARTE JOSEPH BOYD On Appeal from the 1A District Court Tyler County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 13,067 and
More informationRemedies for Prejudicial Publicity: A Brief Review
Volume 21 Issue 5 Article 1 1976 Remedies for Prejudicial Publicity: A Brief Review James T. Ranney Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Criminal
More informationCOURT USE ONLY. DATE FILED: August 15, 2017
DISTRICT COURT, LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 1060 East 2nd Avenue, Room 106, Durango, CO, 81301-5157 The People of the State of Colorado v. MARK ALLEN REDWINE DATE FILED: August 15, 2017 COURT
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document 577 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO.
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 577 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. 13-10200-GAO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, Defendant.
More informationConflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law. Janet Savage 1
Conflicts of Interest Issues in Simultaneous Representation of Employers and Employees in Employment Law Janet Savage 1 Plaintiffs suing their former employers for wrongful discharge or employment discrimination
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING October Term, A.D. 2016 In the Matter of Amendments to ) the Rules Governing the Commission on ) Judicial Conduct and Ethics ) ORDER AMENDING THE RULES GOVERNING
More informationGentile v. State Bar of Nevada: Trial in the Court of Public Opinion and Coping with Model Rule Where Do We Go from Here
Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 4 1992 Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada: Trial in the Court of Public Opinion and Coping with Model Rule 3.6 - Where Do We Go from Here Lynn S. Fulstone Follow this and additional
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC06-1966 DANNY HAROLD ROLLING, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [October 18, 2006] Danny Harold Rolling, a prisoner under sentence of death and an active
More informationCase 2:11-cv DB Document 46 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-00416-DB Document 46 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION BUSHCO, a Utah Corp., COMPANIONS, L.L.C., and TT II, Inc., Plaintiffs,
More informationThe Prosecutor, The Press, and Free Speech
Fordham Law Review Volume 58 Issue 5 Article 1 1990 The Prosecutor, The Press, and Free Speech Scott, Jr. M. Matheson Recommended Citation Scott, Jr. M. Matheson, The Prosecutor, The Press, and Free Speech,
More informationJournal of Dispute Resolution
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1997 Issue 1 Article 7 1997 Arbitrator or Private Investigator: Should the Arbitrator's Duty to Disclose Include a Duty to Investigate - Abudullah E. Al-Harbi v. Citibank,
More informationDISQUALIFICATION OF THE ADVOCATE/WITNESS Adopted June 18, 1988 Revised June 18, 1994, May 10, 1997 and October 20, 2012
As revised by Editing Subcommittee 2/20/2013 78 DISQUALIFICATION OF THE ADVOCATE/WITNESS Adopted June 18, 1988 Revised June 18, 1994, May 10, 1997 and October 20, 2012 Introduction and Scope This opinion
More informationAbortion - Illinois Legislation in the Wake of Roe v. Wade
DePaul Law Review Volume 23 Issue 1 Fall 1973 Article 28 Abortion - Illinois Legislation in the Wake of Roe v. Wade Joy M. Peigen Catherine L. McCourt George Kois Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review
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 informationSUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ) Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by ) KATHERINE E. WONE ) ) C.A. No.: 2008 CA 008315 B Plaintiff, ) ) The Honorable Brook Hedge v. ) ) Next Court Event:
More information[J ] [MO: Dougherty, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : : CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
[J-50-2017] [MO Dougherty, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SUSAN A. YOCUM, v. Petitioner COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD, Respondent No. 74 MM 2015
More informationFOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petition For Writ Of Mandamus
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED OCT 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS; BRYAN BRANDENBURG; DANIEL FARR. DAN FARR
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT JENZABAR, INC., LING CHAI, and ROBERT A MAGINN, JR., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-2075-H v. LONG BOW GROUP, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT U N I T E D S T A T E S ) ) DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS v. ) SPECIFICATIONS 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, ) 11 AND 15 OF CHARGE II MANNING, Bradley E., PFC ) U.S. Army,
More informationConstitutional Law - Free Press/Fair Trial - Pretrial Suppression Hearing May Be Closed in Order to Preserve Defendant's Right to a Fair Trial
Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 6 1978 Constitutional Law - Free Press/Fair Trial - Pretrial Suppression Hearing May Be Closed in Order to Preserve Defendant's Right to a Fair Trial Douglas Robison Follow this
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2013 Washington
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 Washington Washington has an uneven state whistleblower law: Scoring 62 out of a possible 100; Ranking 15 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42532 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL BRIAN WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. 2015 Opinion No. 69 Filed: October 29, 2015 Stephen W.
More informationSupreme Court Holds that SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Unconstitutionally Appointed
Supreme Court Holds that SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Unconstitutionally Appointed June 26, 2018 On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Lucia v. SEC 1 that Securities and Exchange Commission
More informationRecent Developments in Ethics: New ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): Is this Rule Good for Kansas? Suzanne Valdez
Recent Developments in Ethics: New ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): Is this Rule Good for Kansas? Suzanne Valdez May 17-18, 2018 University of Kansas School of Law New ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): Is This Ethics Rule
More informationThe State s brief in response to the Cafaro defendants motion to enlarge time, previously filed under seal, shall be unsealed. The Cafaro defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO 2010 CR 800 Plaintiff December 21, 2010 Vs. DECISION AND ORDER ANTHONY M. CAFARO, JR. THE CAFARO COMPANY (A) JUDGE WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR..
More informationJury Trial--Surrogate's Court--Executrix Has Right to Jury Trial Under New York State Constitution (Matter of Garfield, 14 N.Y.
St. John's Law Review Volume 39 Issue 1 Volume 39, December 1964, Number 1 Article 13 May 2013 Jury Trial--Surrogate's Court--Executrix Has Right to Jury Trial Under New York State Constitution (Matter
More informationROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY
JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT, PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS ROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP MAY 2003 The Court of Appeals had before it this spring four appeals from decisions
More informationEthics Opinion No. 94-1
Ethics Opinion No. 94-1 Attorney Communication with the Managing Board of a Government Agency, Regarding Pending Litigation, Without the Consent of Counsel Representing the Agency. The Committee has been
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STEPHEN SERVICE, No. 299, 2014 Defendant Below- Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and v. for New Castle County STATE OF DELAWARE,
More informationSupreme Court Decisions
Hoover Press : Anderson DP5 HPANNE0900 10-04-00 rev1 page 187 PART TWO Supreme Court Decisions This section does not try to be a systematic review of Supreme Court decisions in the field of campaign finance;
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and McClanahan Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and McClanahan Argued at Alexandria, Virginia ZACHARY MYRON COOPER MEMORANDUM OPINION BY v. Record No. 0819-03-4 JUDGE ELIZABETH
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 informationCourt Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 No 106
New South Wales Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 No 106 Contents Part 1 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Definitions 2 4 Inherent jurisdiction and powers of courts
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2018 Washington
Accountability Report Card Summary 2018 Washington Washington has an uneven state whistleblower law: Scoring 64 out of a possible 100; Ranking 15 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
More informationPeople v Kirk 2006 NY Slip Op 30620(U) March 22, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 2436/02 Judge: Ronald A. Zweibel Republished from
People v Kirk 2006 NY Slip Op 30620(U) March 22, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 2436/02 Judge: Ronald A. Zweibel Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
More informationCriminal Law-Federal System Adopts Specific Parameters for the Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial
University of Richmond Law Review Volume 10 Issue 2 Article 19 1976 Criminal Law-Federal System Adopts Specific Parameters for the Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial Follow this and additional works
More informationFree Press v. Fair Trial: Insulation Against Injustice
Louisiana Law Review Volume 33 Number 4 ABA Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice - A Student Symposium Summer 1973 Free Press v. Fair Trial: Insulation Against Injustice Elliot W. Atkinson Jr. Repository
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI State ex rel. BuzzFeed, Inc., ) Relator, ) ) v. ) No. SC95265 ) Honorable Jon Cunningham, Circuit ) Judge, Division Five, Eleventh ) Judicial Circuit, Saint Charles, )
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1 Article 45C 1
Article 45C. Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. 1-569.1. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Article: (1) "Arbitration organization" means an association, agency, board, commission, or other
More information21.6 Right to Appear Free of Physical Restraints
21.6 Right to Appear Free of Physical Restraints A. Constitutional Basis of Right Federal constitution. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit the use of physical restraints
More informationMotion for Rehearing denied July 8, 1982 COUNSEL
STATE EX REL. N.M. PRESS ASS'N V. KAUFMAN, 1982-NMSC-060, 98 N.M. 261, 648 P.2d 300 (S. Ct. 1982) STATE, ex rel. NEW MEXICO PRESS ASSOCIATION and NEW MEXICO BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, vs. HON.
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Sixth Amendment * Televising Trials. Chandler v. Florida, 101 S. Ct. 802 (1981)
T CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Sixth Amendment * Televising Trials Chandler v. Florida, 101 S. Ct. 802 (1981) HE SUPREME COURT recently handed down a unanimous decision dealing with the respective rights of the
More informationDALIA DIPPOLITO, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. No. 4D DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT.
DALIA DIPPOLITO, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. No. 4D17-1145 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT May 26, 2017 Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit
More informationCase 1:17-cr ABJ Document 79 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 79 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 17-201-1 (ABJ) PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.,
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. Executive Summary
To: New Jersey Law Revision Commission From: Samuel M. Silver; John Cannel Re: Bail Jumping, Affirmative Defense and Appearance Date: February 11, 2019 M E M O R A N D U M Executive Summary A person set
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:09-cr-00272-EMK Document 156 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : NO. 3:CR-09-000272 vs. : : MARK A. CIAVARELLA,
More informationThe Title-Body Clause and the Proposed Statutory Revision
Louisiana Law Review Volume 8 Number 1 November 1947 The Title-Body Clause and the Proposed Statutory Revision Gordon Kean Repository Citation Gordon Kean, The Title-Body Clause and the Proposed Statutory
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NOS. 10-S STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PETER PRITCHARD
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH, SS. SOUTHERN DISTRICT SUPERIOR COURT NOS. 10-S-745-760 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. PETER PRITCHARD ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A BILL OF
More informationInjunction to Prevent Divulgence of Evidence Obtained by Wiretaps in State Criminal Prosecutions
Nebraska Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 Article 9 1961 Injunction to Prevent Divulgence of Evidence Obtained by Wiretaps in State Criminal Prosecutions Allen L. Graves University of Nebraska College of Law,
More informationProposed Rule 3.8 [RPC 5-110] Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor (XDraft # 11, 7/25/10)
Proposed Rule 3.8 [RPC 5-110] Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor (XDraft # 11, 7/25/10) Summary: This amended rule states the responsibilities of a prosecutor to assure that charges are supported
More informationATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box Olympia WA
Rob McKenna 1125 Washington Street SE PO Box 40100 Olympia WA 98504-0100 Chair, Municipal Research Council 2601 Fourth A venue #800 Seattle, WA 98121-1280 Dear Chairman Hinkle: You recently inquired as
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Formal Opinion 472 November 30, 2015 Communication with Person Receiving Limited-Scope Legal Services Under Model Rule
More informationNEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL SELECTION
New York County Lawyers Association 14 Vesey Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 267-6646 fax: (212) 406-9252 www.nycla.org NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL SELECTION COMMENTS AND
More informationCSE Case Law Update. March 2009
CSE Case Law Update March 2009 STATE SUPREME COURTS State of Ohio v. Rivas, 905 N.E.2d 618 (Ohio March 31, 2009). Discovery The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Appellate Court s ruling that overturned
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Godfrey, 181 Ohio App.3d 75, 2009-Ohio-547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO. 10-08-08 v. GODFREY, O P I N
More informationConstitutional Law--Fair Trial and Free Press--State Court Contempt Power
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 18 Issue 4 1967 Constitutional Law--Fair Trial and Free Press--State Court Contempt Power Felix J. Ziobert Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev
More informationLitigation Tourists and Multi-Plaintiff Cases in All the Wrong Places
Litigation Tourists and Multi-Plaintiff Cases in All the Wrong Places Kelly A. Evans Evans Fears & Schuttert LLP 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1130 Las Vegas, NV 89102 kevans@efstriallaw.com Kelly A.
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION. Plaintiff,
Case 6:14-cv-00002-DLC-RKS Document 1 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 16 Anita Y. Milanovich (Mt. No. 12176) THE BOPP LAW FIRM, PC 1627 West Main Street, Suite 294 Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: (406) 589-6856 Email:
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Copyright 2000 the American Bar Association. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Formal Opinion 00-417
More informationYOUR ROLE AS STANDBY COUNSEL. Paul K. Sun, Jr. Ellis & Winters LLP
YOUR ROLE AS STANDBY COUNSEL Paul K. Sun, Jr. Ellis & Winters LLP Our experience has taught us that a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced
More informationSTATE V. GRELL: PLACING THE BURDEN ON DEFENDANTS TO PROVE MENTAL RETARDATION IN CAPITAL CASES
STATE V. GRELL: PLACING THE BURDEN ON DEFENDANTS TO PROVE MENTAL RETARDATION IN CAPITAL CASES Mary Hollingsworth INTRODUCTION In determining eligibility for the death penalty, Arizona law requires defendants
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 4:16cv501-RH/CAS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 4:16-cv-00501-RH-CAS Document 29 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 12 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION JOHN DOE 1 et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationPlaintiff pro se Shyron Bynog ( Plaintiff or Bynog ) commenced this civil
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X SHYRON BYNOG, : Plaintiff, : -against- : 05 Civ. 0305 (WHP) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
More informationTRANSMOGRIFICATION: LEGAL ETHICS AND THE TRANSACTIONAL LAWYER. Lindsey Lee Bond, Taylor & Lee, L.L.P Main, Suite 1220 Houston, Texas
TRANSMOGRIFICATION: LEGAL ETHICS AND THE TRANSACTIONAL LAWYER Lindsey Lee Bond, Taylor & Lee, L.L.P. 1021 Main, Suite 1220 Houston, Texas INTO THE DEEP END: NAVIGATING THE PERILOUS WATERS OF LEGAL ETHICS
More information2017COA150. No. 16CA0210 and 16CA0211, People v. Iannicelli and People v. Brandt Crimes Jury-tampering
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Formal Opinion 92-369 December 7, 1992 Disposition of Deceased Sole Practitioners Client Files and Property To fulfill
More informationAssociation of Women Attorneys of Lake County
Association of Women Attorneys of Lake County Seminar, January 12, 2018-10:30-11:30 a.m. Responsibilities to the Profession and Client Raymond J. McKoski Presentation Materials ABA MODEL RULE OF PROFESSIONAL
More information